upon two views. If the master sees his slave engaging in trade and does not forbid him, he does not thereby become a permitted (ma'dhun) slave.

Chapter Four: Regarding his transactions. If he is a slave permitted to trade, his acknowledgment (iqrar) is accepted regarding what he was permitted for, and it is not accepted regarding what exceeds that. The acknowledgment of one who is not permitted regarding property is not accepted. If he acknowledges an asset in his possession or a debt that attaches to his person (raqabah), it is not accepted against his master, because he is acknowledging a right against another person, so it is not accepted, just as if he were to acknowledge that his master sold him. It is established upon his liability (dhimmah) and he is pursued for it after manumission. If he acknowledges a crime he committed, the permitted slave and others are equal in this. This is divided into four categories: The first is a crime requiring payment, such as his destruction of property, a crime of error, quasi-intentional crime, or an intentional crime for which there is no retribution (qisas), such as a penetrative wound (ja'ifah) and the like. His acknowledgment of this is not accepted, because it is an acknowledgment of debt/money, so it is not accepted, just as if he acknowledged dirhams or dinars. The second category is a crime requiring a hadd punishment other than theft, or qisas for something other than life. His acknowledgment of this is accepted. Abu Hanifah, Malik, and al-Shafi'i held this view. Zufar, Dawud, al-Muzani, and Ibn Jarir said: It is not accepted, because the right of the master is diminished by it, so it is not accepted, just like an acknowledgment of a crime of error. Our argument is what was narrated from 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), that he severed the hand of a slave based on his acknowledgment of theft, and he whipped a slave who acknowledged adultery before him for half the hadd. There is no disagreement from the Companions regarding this, so it constitutes consensus. Furthermore, because that for which the acknowledgment of a master is not accepted against the slave, the acknowledgment of the slave is accepted, such as divorce. Also, the slave is not suspected in this because the harm is more specific to him, and he feels the pain more acutely; therefore his acknowledgment is accepted, just as if a wife acknowledged it. Derived from these two meanings is a crime of error; for the master's acknowledgment of it is accepted, and the slave is not harmed by it. The third category is his acknowledgment of theft. It is accepted regarding the hadd, so his hand is severed, but it is not accepted regarding the property, regardless of whether the item is destroyed or remains in the hand of the master or the slave. Al-Shafi'i held this view. It is possible that he is not to be severed if he acknowledges the theft of a specific item found in his possession. Abu Hanifah held this view, because the item is legally ruled to belong to his master, so he is not to be severed for stealing an item belonging to his master, and because claiming the stolen item is a condition for the amputation.

770 - Issue: He said: (And the sale of a dog is void, even if it is trained.)

There is no disagreement within the school that the sale of a dog is void, regardless of the type of dog. Al-Hasan, Rabi'ah, Hammad, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and Dawud held this view. Abu Hurayrah disliked the price of a dog. Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah and 'Ata' granted a concession specifically for the price of a hunting dog.