The lame, the insane and the one-eyed: do they suffice as a slave to free?

Ibrahim used to say regarding one who is obliged to free a slave and buys a slave: If the slave can go from one kind of work to another, he suffices him; a slave who cannot work does not suffice him. The one who can work is the one-eyed and the like; the one who cannot work is the crippled and the blind.

Al-Hasan used to dislike (freeing) a lame slave, or a slave whose limbs are impaired, for an obligatory freeing of a slave.

A man asked Ikrimah: "Does a one-eyed slave suffice for an obligatory freeing of a slave?" He said: "Many a one-eyed one is skilful." And he said: "A lame one suffices." He said: "The Hour will come with the crippled."

Ibrahim said: A one-eyed slave suffices.

Al-Hakam said: For one who is obliged to free a slave, an insane slave does not suffice.

Ibn Jurayj said: I asked Ata: "In (the expiation for) killing a person, does freeing a believing slave who is not sound suffice, while he can still benefit from him, the slave being lame or having a paralysed limb?" He refused it and preferred a sound slave.

Amir said: Giving a blind slave in expiation is permissible.

Amr said: I asked al-Hasan about a blind slave and a crippled slave. He said: It does not suffice.