If the master frees the child of the Mukatabah without freeing the mother, is the manumission valid?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Mukātaba (Contractual Manumission)
Primary text
If the master frees the child but not the mother, his manumission is valid. Ahmad narrated this opinion, as the child is owned property, so his manumission is valid, similar to the mother. Furthermore, since freeing him along with the mother is valid, freeing him individually is also valid, as with all his other slaves.
Supporting text
Al-Qadi stated that the manumission should not be implemented because it causes harm to the mother by depriving her of the child's earnings, which she could have used to support her *kitabah*. However, the correct view is that he is freed, and the harm mentioned by Al-Qadi is invalid for several reasons: First, harm is only relevant when the person has earnings exceeding maintenance needs; if there are no excess earnings, freeing the child from the maintenance obligation is pure benefit, not harm. Second, her right to his earnings is not obligatory, evidenced by the fact that she cannot force him to work, so the loss of his earnings is not a legally recognized harm to her. Third, general harm is insufficient to prevent an act of manumission whose prerequisites are established, unless supported by a recognized legal precedent, which was not provided. This general harm is overlooked in cases like freeing an insolvent person, a mortgaged item, or when manumission extends to a partner's share, where freedom is established despite the loss of an obligatory right. This case is more worthy of precedence.