Does a master's silence regarding a slave's unauthorized trading imply permission?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Partnership
Primary text
If a master observes his slave engaging in trade and does not forbid it, the slave does not thereby become authorized (*ma'dhun*) for trade. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i. The evidence is that trading requires explicit permission (*idhn*); mere silence cannot substitute for permission, similar to a pledgeholder selling a mortgaged item while the pledgor remains silent, or the pledgeholder selling it while the pledgor remains silent, akin to the actions of non-related parties. Silence is not equivalent to permission in this context.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that the slave becomes authorized because the master's silence implies abandonment (*isqat*) of his right, analogous to a co-sharer who remains silent regarding claiming pre-emption (*shuf'a*). This analogy is rejected because the right of pre-emption lapses upon the passage of time once knowledge is acquired, as it must be exercised immediately (*'ala al-fawr*).