is abrogated, based on the evidence that a free man cannot be sold, and that the sale occurred upon his physical person (raqaba), evidenced by the fact that the hadith states the creditors said to the buyer: "What will you do with him?" He said, "I will emancipate him." They said, "We are no less desirous than you are to emancipate him," so they emancipated him. We respond: This is an establishment of abrogation based on mere speculation, which is not permissible. It is not established that the sale of a free man was ever permissible in our Sharia. Interpreting the wording of his sale as the sale of his services is easier than interpreting it as the sale of his physical person, which is forbidden. The omission of an annexed noun (mudaf) and the substitution of the annexing noun (mudaf ilayh) in its place is permissible and frequent in the Quran and in the speech of the Arabs, such as His saying, the Almighty: "And they were made to drink the calf into their hearts" (Surah al-Baqarah: 93), and "But righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah" (Surah al-Baqarah: 177), and "And ask the city" (Surah Yusuf: 82), and other similar examples. Likewise, his saying: "I will emancipate him," means: [I will release him] from my right over him. Similarly, it says: "And they emancipated him," meaning the creditors, and they only possessed the debt he owed. As for the saying of the Almighty: "And if [the debtor] is in hardship, then let there be postponement until [a time of] ease," it is directed that his case does not fall under its general application; for this pertains to the ruling regarding the wealthy in terms of the prohibition of receiving Zakat, the lapse of his maintenance from his relative, and the obligation of his relative's maintenance upon him. Furthermore, the hadith [of Surraq] is a specific case (qadiyyat 'ayn) whose ruling cannot be established except in a similar instance, and it was not established that this debtor had earnings in excess of his maintenance requirements. As for accepting a gift or charity, it involves an obligation and a disgrace (ma'arra) that the hearts of those possessing honor refuse, unlike our current issue. Once this is established, he is not compelled to earn unless his earnings contain a surplus beyond his own maintenance and the maintenance of those he supports, according to what has been previously mentioned.

Section: He is not compelled to accept a gift, charity, a bequest, or a loan, nor is a woman compelled to marry in order to obtain her dowry, because that involves harm due to the obligation incurred in a gift, charity, and bequest, the [repayment of the] counter-value in a loan, and the husband's ownership of the woman in marriage,