the craft in the present, and no time has passed in which it is possible for him to have learned it, then the word is that of the partner, because we have known his truthfulness. If a time has passed in which it is possible for it to have occurred, then there are two viewpoints: one of them is that the word is that of the emancipator, because the original principle is the acquittal of his liability. The second is that the word is that of the partner, because the original principle is the persistence of what was and the non-occurrence of change. If they disagree regarding a defect that decreases his value, such as theft or running away, then the word is that of the partner, because the original principle is soundness. Thus, by the same logic with which we prioritized the statement of the emancipator in denying the craft, we prioritize the statement of the partner in denying the defect. If the defect exists in him at the time of the disagreement, and they disagree on whether it had occurred previously, then the word is that of the emancipator, because the original principle is the acquittal of his liability, the persistence of what was on its former state, and the non-occurrence of the defect in him. It is possible that the word should be that of the partner, because the original principle is his acquittal from the defect at the time of emancipation.

Section: What is considered regarding ease of means (yasar) in this matter is that he possesses an amount beyond his sustenance for his day and night, and what he needs of his essential requirements such as clothing, housing, and other necessities, which he may then hand over to his partner. Abu Bakr mentioned this in "al-Tanbih." If some of what suffices for the value is found, he is appraised according to the portion of it that he owns. Ahmad mentioned this in the report of Ibn Mansur, and it is the position of Malik. Ahmad said: A house or land shall not be sold for it. The implication of this is that his base capital shall not be sold for him. Malik and al-Shafi'i said: The furnishings of his house and whatever of his clothing is of value shall be sold, and judgment shall be passed against him in that matter just as judgment is passed against him in other claims. What is considered in that regard is the state at the time of his utterance of emancipation, because it is the time of the obligation. If the one who was poor becomes wealthy after that, his emancipation does not spread (yasri), and if the wealthy one becomes poor, what was obligated upon him does not lapse, because it became an obligation upon him, and thus it does not lapse with his insolvency, like a debt incurred by destruction. Ahmad explicitly stated this.