the just and the corrupt, and the Muslim and the disbeliever, due to the equality of the just and the corrupt, and the Muslim and the disbeliever, in confession and claim, unlike the case before it.

Section: If one of the two partners is wealthy and the other is poor, the share of the poor partner is emancipated alone, due to his confession (7) [that his share] (8) has become free by the emancipation of his wealthy partner whose emancipation extends. The share of the wealthy partner is not emancipated, because he claims that the poor partner, whose emancipation does not extend, emancipated his share exclusively, so he was emancipated alone. The testimony of the poor partner against him is not accepted, because he draws a benefit to himself by his testimony, as he necessitates for him, by his testimony, half of his value. Based on this, if the slave has no evidence other than him, the wealthy partner takes an oath and is acquitted of both the value and the emancipation. There is no wala' for the poor partner in his share because he does not claim it, nor for the wealthy partner for the same reason. If the poor partner returns, emancipates him, and claims him, it is established for him. If the wealthy partner confesses to the emancipation of his share and the poor partner confirms it, his share is also emancipated, he bears the liability for the poor partner's share, and the wala' is established (9) for him. If the slave has extrinsic evidence testifying to the emancipation of the wealthy partner, and they are two just men, the emancipation is established, and the value is owed to the poor partner by him. If it is one man, the slave takes an oath with him, and the emancipation is established (10) in one of the two narrations. In the other, the emancipation is not established, and the poor partner may take an oath with him and be entitled to the value of his share, whether the slave took an oath or not, because what he is claiming is property, for which a witness and an oath are accepted (11).

Section: If one of the two partners claims that his partner emancipated his share and the other denies it, and the one against whom the claim is made is wealthy, the share of the claimant is emancipated alone due to his confession of his freedom by the extension (12) of his partner's emancipation, and he becomes a claimant for half the value against his partner. It does not extend, because he does not confess that he is the one who emancipated him; rather, he was emancipated by his confession of his freedom, not by his emancipation of him, and he has no wala' over him because of his denial of him. The judge said...