to favor him with the price and to show him partiality, so it is like the case where he says: 'Sell my slave for five hundred,' when its value is more than that, and like if he bequeathed that so-and-so perform Hajj on his behalf for five hundred. Ishaq said: The remainder of the price is put toward emancipation, just as if he bequeathed that Hajj be performed on his behalf for five hundred, what remains is returned to the Hajj. Our view is that he ordered his purchase for five hundred, so whatever remained of the price reverts to him, just as if he had commissioned someone to purchase him during his lifetime. This differs from the case where he bequeaths that a man perform Hajj on his behalf for five hundred; for the intent there is to favor the one performing Hajj with the remainder, while in our issue, the objective is emancipation. It also differs from the case where he bequeaths that Hajj be performed on his behalf for five hundred for an unspecified person, because the bequest there is for Hajj generally, so all of it is spent on it, whereas here it is for a specified person, so it does not exceed him. Regarding his saying that he intended to favor Zayd with the price and show him partiality, we say: The correct position is that if there is evidence indicating that—either because the seller is a friend of his, or is in need, or is a person of virtue who is intended by such things, or he specified this price while he knows the slave can be obtained for less due to its low value—then the entire price is paid to Zayd, just as if he had explicitly stated that, saying: 'And pay him the entirety of it, even if he offers it for less.' But if such evidence is absent, the apparent meaning is that he only intended emancipation, which has been achieved, so the remainder reverts to him, just as if he had ordered him to purchase it during his lifetime.

Section: If he bequeaths that a slave be bought for one thousand to be emancipated on his behalf, and it does not come out of his one-third, a slave is bought with whatever comes out of the one-third. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him. Abu Hanifa said: The bequest is void, because he commanded the purchase of a slave for one thousand, so it is not permitted for the agent to purchase for less, just like an agent. Our view is that it is a bequest that must be executed if the one-third permits it, so if it does not permit it, it must be executed to the extent that it does bear, just as if he bequeathed the emancipation of his slave and the one-third did not bear it. It differs from agency, for if he commissioned him to emancipate a slave, he would not have the right to emancipate part of him, whereas if he bequeathed the emancipation of a slave, he would emancipate of him what the one-third bears.