Section: It is not valid from one who is not permitted to dispose of wealth. Thus, the emancipation by a child or an insane person is not valid. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "This is the opinion of the generality of scholars, and among those from whom we have preserved this are: al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of reasoning." This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The pen is lifted from three: the child until he reaches puberty, the insane person until he regains his sanity, and the sleeper until he wakes up." Moreover, it is a charitable disposal of wealth, so it is not valid from them, just like a gift (hibah). The emancipation by a spendthrift (safih) under interdiction is also not valid, which is the opinion of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad. Abu al-Khattab mentioned another narration regarding it, that his emancipation is valid, by analogy to his divorce and his tadbir (post-mortem emancipation). Our argument is that he is under interdiction regarding his wealth for his own benefit, so his emancipation is not valid, just like that of the child; and because it is a disposal of wealth during his life, it resembles his sale and his gift. It differs from divorce, because the interdiction is upon his wealth, and divorce is not a disposal of wealth. It differs from tadbir, because that is a disposal of it after his death, and he is independent of it by death; therefore, his will is valid while his immediate gift is not. The emancipation by an intoxicated person is based on his divorce, regarding which there is the well-known disagreement. The emancipation by one who is under duress is not valid, just as his divorce, his sale, and none of his disposals are valid.

Section: Emancipation is not valid from anyone other than the owner. Thus, if one emancipates the slave of his young child, or the orphan who is under his guardianship, it is not valid. Al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir held this view. Malik said: "The emancipation of the slave of his young child is valid," based on the Prophet's saying (peace be upon him): "You and your wealth belong to your father." Also, he has legal authority (wilayah) over him and has a right to him, so his emancipation is valid, just like his own wealth. Our argument is that this is emancipation by someone who is not the owner, so it is not valid, just like emancipating the slave of his adult child. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "When Allah made the father an heir to his child's wealth in the amount of one-sixth along with the child, it indicated that he has no right to the remainder." The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), "You and your wealth belong to your father," did not mean literal ownership; rather, he intended hyperbole regarding the obligation of his right upon you, the possibility of taking from your wealth, and the prohibition of you demanding from him what he took from it. This is why his emancipation of the slave of his adult child, regarding whom the tradition was reported, does not take effect. The proof of his legal authority over the wealth of his child is more expressive in prohibiting the emancipation of his slave; for he only established the authority over him for the benefit of the child, to preserve what he has, develop it for him, and manage his interests which the child is unable to manage himself. If the purpose of those in authority is preservation, it necessitates the prevention of wasting and negligence by emancipating his property and giving it away as charity. If a man says to another's slave: "You are free from my wealth," it is nothing. If he buys him after that, he is his owned slave, and there is nothing against him. Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the generality of the jurists have said this. If news reaches a man that a person said to his slave: "You are free from my wealth," and he said, "I am satisfied," it is nothing. Al-Thawri and Ishaq have said this.

1946 - Issue: Abu al-Qasim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "If a slave belongs to three people, and they emancipate him together, or two deputize the third to emancipate their shares along with his share, and he does so, or each one of them emancipates his share while he is insolvent, he becomes free, and his wala' (right of patronage) is between them in thirds."

In summary, whenever a slave belongs to three people and they emancipate him together—either by themselves, by uttering his emancipation together, or by hanging his emancipation on a single condition which then occurs, or by appointing one person to emancipate him, or two of them appointing the third to emancipate him—he becomes free, and his wala' is between them according to the proportion of their shares in him. This is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Wala' belongs only to the one who emancipates." Each one of them has emancipated his share, so the wala' over him is established for him. We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding this. As for if his three masters emancipate him one after another while they are insolvent, or the first two emancipators were insolvent and the third was wealthy, the correct view is that he is emancipated for each one of them in the amount of his share, and he has his wala'. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir related two anomalous opinions regarding when an insolvent person emancipates his share: one of them is that it is void, because it is impossible for half of him to be emancipated separately, for it is impossible for a human to have half of him free and half a slave, just as it is impossible for half a woman to be divorced and half to be a wife, and there is no way to emancipate all of him, so all of it is void.