the amount he possessed, whether he is wealthy or insolvent.

We have already mentioned previously that whoever comes to possess a blood relative who is a mahram, such a person becomes free, based on what Samurah narrated, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever possesses a blood relative who is a mahram, he is free." Narrated by Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, and al-Tirmidhi. Damrah narrated from Sufyan, from Abdullah ibn Dinar, from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever possesses a blood relative who is a mahram, he is free." Ahmad was asked about Damrah, and he said: "He is trustworthy, except that he narrated two hadiths which have no basis; one of them is this hadith." It was also narrated from Ibrahim, from al-Aswad, from Umar, that he said: "Whoever possesses a blood relative who is a mahram, he is free." We have already mentioned this and the disagreement regarding it previously.

As for if he comes to possess a share of someone who becomes free upon his ownership, such as possessing a share of his own child, then the portion he possessed becomes free, whether he acquired it through compensation or without compensation, such as a gift, spoils of war, or a bequest. It is the same whether he acquired it by his own choice, [as we have mentioned], or without his choice, such as inheritance; because everything by which the whole becomes free also makes the part free, just like emancipation through speech. Then, one must look: if he is insolvent, the emancipation does not spread (sariya), and it is established in that part, while the rest remains in bondage, because if he had emancipated him by his speech, his emancipation would not have spread even with his explicit statement and intent for it, so it is even more appropriate here. If he is wealthy, and the ownership was by his choice, such as ownership other than through inheritance, it spreads to the rest of him, so the entire slave becomes free, and he is liable to his partner for the value of the remainder, because he caused him to lose it. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Yusuf. A group said: Only the part he possessed becomes free, whether he acquired it by purchase or otherwise, because he did not emancipate him, but rather he became free upon his ownership by the ruling of the Sharia without his choice, so it does not spread, just as if he had possessed him by inheritance, and it differs from what he explicitly emancipated, because that [latter] he did by his choice, intending it.