The collective matched with the collective, so it reverts to matching the part with the part, like his saying: "The people rode their animals, wore their garments, and took their spears," meaning each person wore his garment, rode his animal, and took his spear. Similarly, if he said: "They emancipated their slaves," it would mean that each one of them emancipated his slave. The Qadi said: This is a suspension of freedom upon their death together, and Ahmad only said: "His share is emancipated," based on the premise that the existence of part of the condition fulfills the position of the whole of it. This is not sound, because if this were the reason, the whole slave would be emancipated due to the existence of part of the condition of each of them, and because we have invalidated this saying by what we mentioned before. The implication of the Qadi's statement is that nothing of him should be emancipated until they both die. If each of them says: "I intended that the slave be free after the last of us in death," this is based upon suspending freedom upon a condition that occurs after death, and we have already mentioned the disagreement regarding that. If we say it is permissible, he is emancipated after the death of the last of them, regarding them both. If we say: It is not valid, the share of the last of them to die is emancipated through tadbir. Regarding its extension to the remainder of him, if his third can bear that, there are two narrations. If each of them says: "If I die before my partner, then my share is for him, and when he dies he is free; and if I die after him, then my share is free," then each of them has bequeathed his share to the other. So if one of them dies, the entire slave becomes for the other, and when he dies, he is entirely emancipated over him, and his wala' becomes entirely for him, if we say: It is not valid to suspend emancipation upon a condition after death. And if we say: It is valid, he is emancipated over both of them, and his wala' is between them.

1968 - Issue: He said: (And he has the right to sell him to pay off a debt).

The apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement is that he is not to be sold for a debt, and Ahmad has alluded to this. Malik said: He is not sold except for a debt that exceeds the slave's capital value; so if the slave is worth a thousand and he has five hundred upon him, he does not sell the slave. It has been narrated from Ahmad that he said: "I hold that the mudabbar may be sold for a debt, and if he is poor and owns nothing, I hold that he should be sold; because the Prophet (peace be upon him) sold a mudabbar when he knew that his owner did not possess..."