as well, without separation. We have already mentioned what necessitates separation, and in it there is a middle path between the two schools of thought, which is more appropriate, God willing, the Almighty.

Section: If a slave is owned by two partners, and the slave gives one of them fifty dinars on the condition that he emancipate his share of him, and he does so, then he becomes free, and the emancipation extends to the remainder if he (the owner) is wealthy. The other partner may then demand from him half of the fifty and half the value of the slave; because what is in the slave's possession is held by both masters, and neither of them has exclusive control over it. However, the share of the one who emancipates is validly emancipated, even if the compensation is legally entitled, as the emancipation did not take place on the specific money itself, but he merely named fifty and then gave it to him. If he applied the emancipation to the specific money itself, he must return to the slave the value of what he emancipated with the entitled compensation, and the emancipation extends to the share of his partner, and he may demand its value. The wala' (patronage rights) belongs to the emancipator.

Section: If one of the two partners authorizes his partner to emancipate his share, and the agent says, "My share is free," he becomes free, and it extends to the share of his partner, and the wala' belongs to him. If he emancipates the share of the authorizer, it becomes free, and it extends to his own share, and the wala' belongs to the authorizer. If he emancipates half of the slave without intending any specific part, it is possible that it is directed toward his own share, because it does not require an intention, while the partner's share requires an intention, and he did not intend that. It is also possible that it is directed toward the partner's share, because he commanded him to emancipate, so it is directed to what was commanded. It is also possible that it is directed to both, because they are equal, so it applies to both. Whichever of them we rule to have been emancipated, he guarantees the share of his partner. It is also possible that he does not guarantee; because if the agent emancipates his own share, and it extends to the share of his partner, he does not guarantee it; because he has permission to emancipate, and it has become free through the extension (siraayah), so he does not guarantee, like someone who is given permission to destroy something, for he does not guarantee it even if he destroys it through extension. And if he emancipates the share of his partner, the partner is not obligated to provide compensation; because he is the direct actor of the cause of destruction, so no compensation for what was destroyed by it is due to him, just as if an outsider said to him: "Emancipate your slave," and he emancipated him. And God knows best.