and it is free from his property." (10) This is because it is a removal of ownership over a part of his human slave, so it ceases to apply to the entirety of him, just like divorce. It differs from a sale; for in the latter, there is no need for si'ayah (striving to pay for freedom) or being based on the principle of dominance (taghlib) and propagation (sarayah) (11) (12). Once this is established, there is no difference between emancipating a large part, such as a half or a third, or a small part, such as a tenth or a tenth of a tenth. We know of no disagreement in this among those who hold the view of the propagation of emancipation when it is in a shared state. If he emancipates a specific part, such as his head, hand, or finger, the whole of him is freed as well. This is the position of Qatadah, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. The adherents of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: If he emancipates his head, back, abdomen, body, self, or private part, the whole of him is freed because his life cannot be sustained without them. If he emancipates his hand or a limb without which his life can be sustained (13), he is not freed, because it is possible to remove that while he remains alive, so he is not freed by its emancipation, similar to his hair or tooth. Our evidence is that he emancipated a limb of his limbs, so the entirety of him is freed, just as with his head. As for if he emancipates his hair, tooth, or fingernail, he is not freed. Qatadah and al-Layth said concerning a man who emancipates his slave's fingernail: He is entirely freed, because it is a part of his body, so it resembles his finger. Our evidence is that these things fall away and others grow in their place, so they resemble hair and saliva, and this has been mentioned regarding divorce (14), and what is mentioned regarding divorce applies equally to emancipation. And Allah knows best.

1951 - Issue: He said: (If a slave is owned by two partners, and each of them claims that his partner emancipated his share in him, and both are insolvent, the statement of each one against the other is not accepted. If they are both just (adlan), the slave has the right to take an oath along with each of them, and he becomes free, or he may take an oath with one of them, and half of him becomes free).

As for when the two partners are insolvent, the claim of one of them against the other regarding the emancipation of his share is not a confession of the freedom of his share, nor is it a claim of entitlement to its value (1) from the emancipator, because the emancipation of an insolvent person is restricted to his own share and does not propagate to anyone else. Thus, his claim contains nothing more than him being a witness against his partner.