If his master sells him after he has entered into ihram, the ruling regarding his buyer is exactly the same as the ruling regarding his seller concerning forcing him to leave his ihram; for he bought him while he was devoid of the ability to use his own benefits, so he resembles a married or hired slave girl. If the buyer knew of that, he has no option of annulment, for he entered into it with insight, so he is like someone who bought a defective item knowing of its defect. If he did not know, he has the right to annulment, for he is harmed by the slave proceeding with his Hajj, due to the loss of his benefits—unless the slave's ihram was without the permission of his master, and we say: [the master] has the right to force him to leave it, then [the buyer] does not possess the right to annulment, because he is able to repel the harm from himself. If his master granted him permission for ihram, then retracted it before he entered into ihram, and the slave knew of his retraction before entering into ihram, then he is like someone to whom no permission was granted. If he did not know until he entered into ihram, then is his ruling the same as one who entered into ihram with his master's permission? There are two scholarly views, based on the issue of the agent (wakil): is he dismissed by removal [of authority] before he learns of it? There are two narrations.

Section: If a slave makes a vow for Hajj, his vow is valid; for he is accountable (mukallaf), so his vow takes effect like that of a free person. However, his master has the right to prevent him from proceeding with it, for it causes the master to lose a mandatory right owed to him, so he is prevented from it, just as if he had not made the vow. This was mentioned by al-Qadi and Ibn Hamid. It is narrated from Ahmad that he said: "It does not please me to prevent him from fulfilling it," and this is because it involves the performance of a mandatory act. It is possible that this is a matter of detestation (karaha) rather than prohibition (tahrim), based on what we have mentioned, and it is possible that it is prohibition, because it is an obligation, and thus [the master] does not possess the right to prevent him from it, like other obligations. The first view is more appropriate. If he is emancipated, he is required to fulfill it after the Hajj of Islam. If he enters into ihram for it first, it is diverted to the Hajj of Islam, like a free person when he makes a vow for Hajj.

Section: Regarding his offenses: Whatever he commits against his ihram, the ruling for it is binding upon him. His ruling regarding what is required of him is the same as that of the insolvent free person; his obligation is fasting. If he leaves the state of ihram due to being restricted by an enemy, or his master forces him to leave it, fasting is upon him; he does not leave the state of ihram before performing it, like a free person, and his master does not have the right to intervene between him and the fasting. This was explicitly stated; for it is a mandatory fast, resembling the fast of Ramadan. If the master grants him ownership of a sacrificial animal...