relatives, for the emancipation of his blood relatives is not a disposition by him; rather, the Shari'ah emancipates them for their owner upon his ownership. The mukatab's ownership is incomplete, so they are not emancipated by him. Once he is emancipated, his ownership becomes complete, and they are emancipated at that time. The emancipated one only attains freedom through the emancipation that was initially invalid, so its validity is not certain when ownership becomes complete; [because the completeness of ownership] in the second instance does not necessitate that it was complete at the time of emancipation. For this reason, his other gratuitous donations made during his performance of the contract are not valid. However, if his master grants permission for it, it is valid. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of two opinions: It is not valid, because his gratuitous donation of his wealth causes the loss of the objective of his kitabah (contract of manumission), which is emancipation, a right of Allah, the Exalted, or a right involving Him, so it is not permissible to cause its loss. Also, because emancipation is inseparable from wala' (patronage), [and the slave is not] among its people. Furthermore, the ownership of the mukatab is incomplete, and the master does not possess the right to emancipate what is in his (the slave's) hand, nor to gift it, so his permission for it is not valid. Our evidence is that the right does not exit from the two of them; therefore, if they agree upon the donation of it, it is permissible, like the pledger and the pledgee. What they mentioned is invalidated by marriage, for he does not possess it [nor does the master possess it] over him, yet if he permits him to do so, it is permissible. As for the wala', it remains suspended; if the mukatab is emancipated, it belongs to him, otherwise it belongs to his master, [just as his slaves among his blood relatives remain in slavery. This is the opinion of the Qadi. Abu Bakr said: It belongs to his master]; because his emancipation was only valid with his master's permission, so he was like a deputy for him.
Section: The mukatab is under interdiction regarding his wealth, so he does not have the right to consume it, nor to gift it. This is the opinion of
(19) In B: "the kin". (20) In M: "he is emancipated". (21) Omitted from B. (22) In A, B, and M: "and likewise". (23) In B and M: "it exceeds". (24) In the Original, A, and B: "and it is not". (25) In M: "because". (26) In A and M: "he possesses". (27) Omitted from the Original. (28) In A and M, an addition: "the judge". (29) Omitted from the Original. A matter for consideration. (30) In the Original: "like that which is established".
