Who constitutes a close, non-marriageable relative (*Dhu Rahm Muhram*) upon whose possession a slave is automatically freed?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Walā' (Patronage)
Primary text
A close, non-marriageable relative is defined as a person whose marriage to the possessor would be forbidden if one were male and the other female. This includes ascendants (parents and grandparents, whether paternal or maternal), descendants (children and grandchildren, male or female), full or half-siblings, and their descendants in the direct line downwards. It also includes paternal uncles, paternal aunts, maternal uncles, and maternal aunts, but not their children. Ownership of any of these individuals results in their automatic manumission. This ruling is narrated from Umar and Ibn Mas'ud, and it is the opinion of Al-Hasan, Jabir bin Zayd, 'Ata', Al-Hakam, Hammad, Ibn Abi Layla, Al-Thawri, Al-Layth, Abu Hanifa, Al-Hasan bin Salih, Shuraik, and Yahya bin Adam.
Supporting text
Malik only mandated the freeing of parents and children, regardless of how far removed, and full or half-siblings, excluding their children. Al-Shafi'i limited it strictly to the ascendants and descendants in the direct lineage (the two 'pillars' of the lineage). Dawood and the Ahl al-Zahir excluded all except if the master purchased the relative while they were in servitude and then freed them, citing the hadith: 'No descendant excuses [the master from paying] his father unless he finds him in servitude and buys him, then frees him.' However, the primary view relies on the Hadith of Al-Samura: 'Whoever possesses a Dhu Rahm Muhram, he is free.' Furthermore, if a relative is freed this way, the loyalty belongs to the master because the freeing occurs from his wealth due to his action (possession), similar to if he directly performed the freeing, regardless of how he gained ownership.