not say it. Al-Marwudhi said: Abu 'Abd Allah declared the hadith of Sa'id to be weak. Ibn al-Mundhir said: The hadith of al-isti'sa' (working for payment) is not authentic. Hammam mentioned that the mention of al-isti'sa' is from the legal fatwas of Qatadah, and there is a distinction between speech that is the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the statement of Qatadah. He said after that: Qatadah used to say: "If he has no wealth, he is made to work for payment." Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: The hadith of Abu Hurayrah revolves around Qatadah, and Shu'bah, Hisham, and Hammam have agreed on omitting its mention, and they are the authoritative proofs regarding Qatadah. Their statement regarding it is the accepted one among all scholars of hadith when others contradict them. As for the position of Abu Hanifah and the latter position of his two companions, they have nothing to support them from any strong or weak hadith; rather, it is purely an opinion and an arbitrary assumption that contradicts both hadiths entirely. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: Abu Hanifah and Zufar did not hold to the hadith of Ibn 'Umar nor the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in their proper application, and every statement that contradicts the Sunnah is rejected upon the one who said it. And Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Section: If we assert the validity of al-si'ayah (working for payment), it is possible that his entire person does not become free, but rather the value remains as a debt upon the slave for which he works to pay off, and his rulings are those of the free. If he dies while he has wealth in his possession, his master is entitled to the remainder of the si'ayah, and the rest of his wealth is inherited, and the slave does not return to anyone for reimbursement. This is the position of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. It is also possible that he does not become free until he performs the si'ayah, so his ruling before performing it is the ruling of one who is partially a slave. If he dies, the partner who did not emancipate (his share) is entitled to his wealth, similar to what would be his right according to those who do not hold to the validity of al-si'ayah; for this is emancipation upon the performance of wealth, so he does not become free before performing it, just like a mukatab (a slave in a contract of manumission). Ibn Abi Layla and Ibn Shubrumah said: The slave returns to the emancipator for reimbursement when he becomes wealthy; because he burdened him with the si'ayah by his act of emancipation. Our evidence is that it is a right that became binding upon the slave in exchange for his freedom, so he does not return to anyone for reimbursement for it, like the wealth of the mukatabah, and because if he were to return to the master for it, he would be the one striving for the compensation, like all other rights binding upon him.