How is the manumission of a *mudabbar* determined if the estate contains outstanding debts or absentee assets, regardless of the master's solvency?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Tadbir (Deferred Emancipation)
Primary text
If a master appoints a slave as *mudabbar* and dies, leaving other assets that cover two-thirds of his wealth, but those assets are absent or owed as debt, the entire slave is not freed immediately. This is because the absentee asset might perish, or recovery of the debt might become impossible, which would leave the slave as the entirety of the inheritance, making him a partner with the heirs (one-third for the slave, two-thirds for the heirs). Thus, he cannot acquire the entire estate. However, the manumission of his one-third share is realized immediately, while the remaining two-thirds remain suspended. His one-third is free under all circumstances because in the worst-case scenario—if nothing else is recovered from the rest of the estate—the slave becomes the entire estate, and his one-third is freed, just as if he had no other assets. With every portion of the debt recovered or absentee asset arriving, a third of the slave's value is freed. If the slave's value is one hundred, and one hundred arrives from the absentee assets, a second third of him is freed; upon another hundred arriving, the remaining third is freed.
Supporting text
There is another view among the companions of al-Shafi'i where nothing of the slave is freed until some debt is recovered or some absentee asset arrives, at which point half of the slave is freed. This is because the heirs have received nothing, and the slave is their partner, so he cannot receive anything unless they receive an equivalent amount first. If the absentee asset perishes and despair sets in regarding debt collection, then his one-third is freed at that point, and the heirs own the remaining two-thirds, because the slave becomes the entire estate. This latter view is considered unsound because the slave's one-third is certainly exempt from being owned, and the doubt only concerns what is in excess of that third. What is certainly exempt from the third must certainly be free, as the *tadbir* is valid and there is no dispute it takes effect on the third. Suspending this third share—when its manumission is certain, its prerequisite is present, and there is no benefit in suspending it—is illogical. The fact that the heirs have received nothing is a matter specific to them and does not negate the slave receiving something where that specific matter is absent. If the debt is deferred, his one-third is freed immediately, and the realization of the remaining two-thirds is postponed until the term. If the creditor is insolvent, one-third is freed immediately, and the remainder is postponed until solvency. Postponing the manumission of the one-third offers no benefit to the heirs and deprives the *mudabbar* of its advantage, so it should not be established.