What is the liability of the master for debts incurred by a slave permitted to conduct business?
Chapter on Selling the Musarrah (Animal with milk retained in udder)
Al-Mughni
Book of Sales
Primary text
For a slave permitted to conduct business or incur debt, there are two narrations concerning whether the debt attaches to the master's estate or the slave's neck. Malik and Al-Shafi'i hold that if the slave possesses assets, those assets must be used to settle the debts. If the slave has no assets, the debt attaches to the slave's personal estate (*dhimma*), which the creditor can pursue upon the slave's manumission and solvency. They argue this debt is established with the creditor's consent, thus it should not attach to the master's liability, unlike debts incurred without permission.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa states that the slave is sold if creditors demand it, implying the debt attaches to the slave's neck because the debt was established with the creditor's consent, thus justifying the sale, similar to mortgaging the slave. Our position is that when a master permits trade, he encourages people to deal with the slave, thereby guaranteeing the debt, as if he had explicitly commanded them to lend or permitted debt exceeding the slave's value. There is no distinction between debt incurred within the scope of permitted trade or outside it; for instance, if the slave was permitted to trade in land commodities but traded in other goods, the master's implied guarantee remains due to the inherent deception regarding the scope of permission.