What is the liability of a master for debts incurred by an un-permitted slave?

Primary text

If a slave incurs debt without the master's permission, there are two primary views regarding liability. The first view, chosen by Al-Khiraqi and Abu Bakr, holds that the debt attaches to the slave's neck (the body/person), similar to the compensation (*arsh*) for the slave's injury, as the debt was incurred without the master's authorization. The second view, adopted by Al-Shafi'i, holds that the debt attaches to the slave's personal estate (*dhimma*). The creditor may pursue the slave using this estate only after the slave is manumitted and financially solvent, as the slave acted as an independent contractor regarding his estate without the master's permission, like the compensation for a freed female slave (*khul'*) or a free person.