The two positions regarding whether, if one bequeaths to a man a slave from among his slaves, he is given one of them by casting lots or whether it is referred to the choice of the heirs, will be discussed later. The difference between our issue and that issue, according to this view, is that he delegated the matter to the heirs when he commanded them to emancipate, so the choice lay with them, whereas in our issue, he did not delegate any part of the matter to them, so they have no choice.

Section: Salih transmitted from his father, regarding one who has two slave boys whose names are the same, and he said: "So-and-so is free after my death," and he has two hundred dirhams, and he did not specify which one, that lots are cast between them, and the one for whom the lot falls is emancipated, and he has no share of the two hundred. The basis for that—and Allah knows best—is that the bequest of the two hundred was made to an unspecified person, and a bequest is not valid except to a specified person. Al-Qadi said: This bequest must be valid because its beneficiary is free at the time of its entitlement. It was transmitted from Ahmad, concerning one who says: "Emancipate a slave on my behalf," that only a Muslim slave is to be emancipated on his behalf; this is because the absolute (unqualified) in the speech of humans is understood according to the absolute in the speech of Allah the Almighty, and when Allah the Almighty commanded the freeing of a slave, it did not apply except to a Muslim, so it is the same for the human.

977 - Issue: He said: "And if he bequeathed that the slave of Zayd be bought for five hundred, and then emancipated, but his master did not sell him, then the five hundred belong to the heirs. And if they bought him for less, then what remains belongs to the heirs."

As for if purchasing him is impossible, whether due to his master's refusal to sell him, or refusal to sell him for the five hundred, or due to his death, or the inability of the one-third to cover his price, then the price belongs to the heirs; because the bequest is void due to the impossibility of carrying it out, so it is like the case where one bequeaths to a man who dies before the testator, or dies after him and leaves no heir. They are not obliged to buy another slave; because the bequest is to a specified person, so it is not diverted to another. As for if they buy him for less, the remainder belongs to the heirs. Al-Thawri said: The entire price is paid to the slave's master; because he intended