by emancipating his share. If they are not both just, then their words have no effect in the current situation, and no consideration is given to their statements, because the testimony of someone who is not just is not accepted. If they are both just, their testimonies are accepted because neither of them attracts a benefit to himself through his testimony, nor does he deflect any harm by it, and a just witness has been obtained for the slave (2) regarding the freedom of each half of him. If he takes an oath along with both of them, the whole of him is freed; if he takes an oath with only one of them, half of him becomes free, according to the narration which states: [That emancipation is achieved through a witness and an oath. And if he does not take an oath with one of them, nothing of him is freed; because] (3) emancipation is not achieved through a witness without an oath, by a consensus that we know of. If one of them is just and the other is not, he may take an oath with the testimony of the just one, and half of him becomes free, while the other half remains in a state of bondage.

Section: Whoever holds the view of seeking freedom through work (istis'a) has admitted that his share has (4) left his control, so the entire slave goes out and must strive for his value; due to the confession (5) of each of them regarding this in his share.

Section: If one of them purchases his partner's share, he is freed in his possession, and it does not propagate to the half that belonged to him; because his emancipation was achieved by his confession of his freedom through the emancipation of his partner, and no wala' (right of patronage) is established for him over him; because he does not claim to have emancipated him, but rather he acknowledges that the emancipator is someone else, and he is merely delivering him from someone who would enslave him (6) unjustly, so he is like one who rescues a captive from the hands of the disbelievers. Abu al-Khattab said: It does propagate; because it is a purchase through which emancipation was achieved (7), so it resembles the purchase of some of his own children. If he belies himself in his testimony against his partner, in order to enslave what he purchased, it is not accepted from him; because it is a retraction of an admission of freedom, so it is not accepted, just as if he admitted to the freedom of his slave and then belied himself. And is the wala' established for him over him if he emancipates him? It is possible that it is not established, for the reason we have mentioned. And it is possible that it is established, because we know that there is a wala' (8) upon the slave, and no one claims it but him,