And he dies while they apparently fit within his one-third, so we emancipated them, then [he died and upon him was] a debt that consumes the estate; we realize the invalidity of their emancipation and the persistence of their servitude, so they are sold for the debt, and their emancipation is treated as a bequest, and debt is prioritized over a bequest. For this reason, Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, decreed that debt is before the bequest. And because debt is prioritized over inheritance by consensus, which is why the estate is sold [in satisfaction of] the debt, and Allah the Exalted has said: "after any bequest he may make or debt" (Surah An-Nisa, 11). Inheritance is prioritized over the bequest regarding the two-thirds, so that which is prioritized over inheritance must necessarily be prioritized over the bequest. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Ibn Abi Layla rejected the emancipation of a slave whom his master emancipated at the time of death while there was a debt against him. Ahmad said: Ibn Abi Layla acted excellently. Abu al-Khattab mentioned from Ahmad a narration regarding one who emancipates his slave during his illness while there is a debt against him, that he is emancipated to the extent of the one-third, and the remainder is rejected. Qatadah, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq said: The slave works to earn his value. Our argument is that he made a charitable donation during his terminal illness that is considered based on its output from the one-third, so the debt is prioritized over it, like a gift. And because it is considered from the one-third, the debt is prioritized over it, like a bequest. The concealment of the debt does not prevent the establishment of its ruling; for this reason, the creditor has the right to collect it. Based on this, it is clear that he emancipated them while the creditor had a claim to them due to his debt, so his emancipation does not take effect, just as if he emancipated property belonging to someone else. If the heirs say: We will pay the debt and cause the emancipation to take effect; there are two views regarding this. One of them is that it does not take effect until they make the emancipation take effect; because the debt was an impediment to it, so it is invalid, and it does not become valid by the removal of the impediment thereafter. The second is that the emancipation takes effect; because the only impediment to it was the debt, so when it is removed, its taking effect becomes obligatory, just as if the heirs waived their rights to the two-thirds of the estate, the emancipation would take effect for all of them. And for the companions of al-Shafi'i, there are two views similar to these. They said: The root of the two views is: if the heirs dispose of the estate through a sale or otherwise, and there is a debt against the deceased, and the debt is paid off, does it take effect? There are two views.

Section: If a sick person emancipates three slaves, and he has no wealth other than them, [so the heirs drew lots], and they emancipated one and kept two in servitude, then a debt appeared against him that consumes half of them, there are two views regarding this. One of them is that the drawing of lots is void; because the debt is a partner in the drawing of lots, so if the division took place while it was absent, it is void, just as if two partners divided property without their third partner. The second is that the drawing of lots is valid; because it is not possible to implement the division and isolate the share of the debt from each of the two shares, because the drawing of lots was entered into for the sake of emancipation, not the debt. So the heirs are told: Pay two-thirds of the debt. It is equivalent to the value of half of the two slaves who remained, either from the slaves or from others, and the half of the slave who was emancipated must be returned. If he emancipated two slaves, we draw lots between them; if the lot falls on one of them, and it was equivalent to one-sixth of the estate, he is emancipated, and the other is sold for the debt. If it is more, he is emancipated to the extent of the one-sixth, and if it is less, he is emancipated, and the remainder of the one-sixth is emancipated from the other.

1962- Issue: He said: "And if he emancipated them, and they are three, so we emancipated one of them due to the inability of his one-third to cover more than that, then wealth appeared for him such that they fit within his one-third, the one who was kept in servitude is emancipated."

Its summary is that when he emancipates three in his illness, and no wealth is known for him other than them, or he designates them for tadbir, or bequeaths their emancipation, only one-third of them is emancipated, and two-thirds remain in servitude if the heirs do not permit their emancipation. When we have done that, then wealth appeared for him equivalent to double them, it becomes clear that they were emancipated from the time he emancipated them, or from the time of his death if he had designated them for tadbir; because tadbir and the sick person's disposition of one-third of his wealth is permissible and effective, and it has become evident that they constitute one-third of his wealth. Our ignorance of that does not prevent it from being present, so it does not prevent the emancipation from having occurred. Consequently,