Then he taught them how to strike, saying: Your example in associating partners with Allah through idols is like that of a slave who is incapable of acting, and a free man who is a master and has been granted wealth by Allah, so he acts with it and spends from it as he wishes.

If you say: Why did he say 'a slave who is incapable of acting'? [He returned to his words. He said: 'If you say, why did he say a slave who is incapable of acting... etc.'] Ahmad said: The view that his ownership is valid is the position of Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him. In this verse, he has a strong argument, because Allah, glorified and exalted is He, gave the example of the slave because he is often a sign of incapacity and lack of ownership and action. Then he clarified the intended meaning: that this slave is not one who happens to have his master’s ownership and thus has power and ability, but he is, as is commonly known about slaves, incapable and powerless. If the ownership of the slave were not conceivable and recognized by law and custom, then Allah's saying 'he is incapable of anything' would be like repetition of what was understood from the phrase 'a slave who is owned.' And the saying of the one who claims it is a distinction from the mukatab (a slave who has a contract for his freedom) is far from the eloquence of the Qur'an. For if the slave's ownership were not valid at all except in the case of writing, then his intention at that time from the general term would be like riddles that do not resemble what is known in the Qur'an and its mastery of various forms of eloquence. Imam Abu al-Maali rejected this regarding the one who interpreted his saying, blessings and peace be upon him, 'Any woman who marries without the permission of her guardian' as referring to the mukatab due to the distance of the intention towards it because of its oddity.

As for the distinction made regarding the one who is permitted, it is based on the view that the intended meaning of incapacity is the lack of ability to act, even if the one who is permitted is not considered an owner according to this speaker. This is far from aligning with His saying 'And whoever We have provided with good provision' because it necessitates that the intended meaning of 'he is incapable of anything' is that he does not own anything of provision, just as you would say about a bankrupt free man: 'So-and-so is incapable of anything,' meaning he does not own anything he can act upon.

It can be concluded from this discussion that there is room in the verse to support the view of Malik, even if one could say: This attribute is inherent as an explanation for the benefit of giving the example of the slave, as if it were said: We only gave the example of the slave because his inherent attribute and known characteristic is that he is incapable of anything, meaning he cannot possess. Often, the state and attribute come without intending to restrict or specify either one, but rather to clarify and explain. An example of this is His saying 'And whoever calls upon another deity with Allah, for which he has no proof' because His saying 'for which he has no proof' is not intended to distinguish him from Allah from 'deity' because every deity called upon other than Allah, glorified and exalted is He, has no proof. Rather, it is intended that the lack of proof is a necessary condition of calling upon a deity other than Allah, glorified and exalted is He. This is the utmost that can be used to support the claim of the invalidity of the slave's ownership. And we can say in refutation of it that the original in attributes and states and their likenesses is specification and restriction. As for what is mentioned as necessary, it is rare and contrary to the original, and Allah is the Granter of success.

And every owned slave, and incapable of acting?

I said: As for mentioning the owned slave, it is to distinguish him from the free man, because the term 'slave' applies to both of them, as they are both servants of Allah.

And as for 'he is incapable of anything,' it is to indicate one who is neither a mukatab nor one who is permitted, because they are capable of acting.

They disagreed about whether a slave can have ownership. The apparent view is that it is not valid for him. If you say: Who is meant by 'And whoever We have provided'? I say: The apparent meaning is that it is described, as if it were said: 'And a free man whom We have provided,' to correspond with 'a slave.' And it is not impossible for it to be a relative clause. If you say: Why is it said 'they are equal' in the plural? I say: Its meaning is:

Do the free men and the slaves equal each other?