And he resolved to return the ten, or he returned the ten before the emancipation and emancipated him for his expiation, it suffices him.

Section: If he purchased a slave intending to emancipate him for his expiation, then he found a defect in him that does not prevent him from being sufficient for the expiation, and he took its compensation (arsh), then emancipated the slave for his expiation, it suffices him, and the compensation belongs to him; because the emancipation occurred upon the defective slave, not the compensation. If he emancipated him before knowing of the defect, then it became apparent to him, and he took its compensation, it is also his, just as if he had taken it before his emancipation. According to another narration, he must spend that compensation on the release of slaves, because he emancipated him believing he was sound, so it was like the compensation for a right of Allah Almighty, and thus the compensation should be spent on the right of Allah Almighty, just as if he had sold him, the compensation would belong to the buyer. If he knew of the defect and did not take the compensation until he emancipated him, the compensation belongs to the emancipator, because he emancipated him while defective, knowing of his defect, so no compensation is required of him, just as if he had sold him to someone who knows of his defect.

1812 - Issue: He said: "And if he purchased someone who becomes emancipated upon his ownership, intending by his purchase the expiation, he is emancipated, but it does not suffice him."

This is the opinion of Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. The People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y) said: It suffices him as an istihsan (juridical preference); because it suffices for the seller's expiation, so it suffices for the buyer's expiation, like others. Our evidence is the saying of the Almighty: {Then a freeing of a slave}. And 'freeing' is the act of emancipation, and emancipation was not achieved here through a freeing by him, nor