all of it. His statement, "and they are both wealthy," is another condition; for the spreading (sarayah) of emancipation is conditioned upon wealth. If one of them is wealthy alone, the entire share of the one who did not emancipate is appraised against him; because the emancipation of the insolvent does not spread, so the guarantee is upon the wealthy one exclusively. If one of them finds part of what is due from him, that amount is appraised against him, and the remainder is upon the other, such as if the owner of the sixth finds the value of half of the sixth, it is appraised against him, and the quarter is appraised against the owner of the half, [and his Wala' becomes quarters between them; one quarter for the owner of the sixth, and the rest for the emancipator of the half; because if one of them were insolvent, the whole would be appraised against the other, so when he is wealthy in part of it, the remainder is appraised against the owner of the half] because he is wealthy.

1955 - Issue: He said: (If a slave-woman is owned between two partners, and one of them has intercourse with her and makes her pregnant, he shall be disciplined but not to the extent of the prescribed punishment (hadd), and he shall guarantee half of her value to his partner, and she becomes an Umm Walad [mother of a child] to him, and his child is free. If he is insolvent, half of her proper dower (mahr al-mithl) shall be a liability upon him. If she does not become pregnant from him, then half of her proper dower is upon him, and she remains under their joint ownership.)

We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding the prohibition of having intercourse with a jointly-owned slave-woman; because the intercourse encounters the property of another without marriage, and Allah Almighty has not made it lawful outside of property or marriage, by the evidence of His saying: {And they who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors} [Surat al-Mu'minun 5-7]. Most scholars do not impose a hadd punishment for it; because he has a proprietary right in her, so that serves as a doubt (shubhah) that wards off the hadd. Abu Thawr deemed it mandatory; because it is prohibited intercourse due to it being in the property of another, so it resembles a case where he has no proprietary right in her at all. Our argument is that it is intercourse that encountered his own property, so no hadd is imposed for it, like having intercourse with his menstruating wife. It differs from what he has no proprietary right in; for there is no doubt for him in that, and that is why if he stole an item of which he owns half, his hand is not cut off, while if he had no property in it, it would be cut off.