The heir is legally competent, he takes possession for himself, and it is not valid for him to appoint a representative to take possession for him; because the legally competent person is his own guardian. If some of them are competent and some are under guardianship, the ruling for each one of them is the same as if he were alone. If some of them permit him to pay to the others, and the one who permitted him (1) in that is competent, and he pays the full share to the other, his share is emancipated. If he is insolvent, it does not extend to the share of his partner, and if he is solvent, his entire share is emancipated, and the remainder is appraised against him, just as if it were between two partners and one of them emancipated his share. This is the apparent view in the statements of al-Khiraqi, and it is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: His emancipation does not extend (2), even if he is solvent. This (3) is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He is not emancipated until he pays all of the kitaba wealth, because he only paid a portion of the kitaba wealth, so it resembles the case where he paid it to the master. If he releases him from the kitaba wealth, he is discharged from it, and he is emancipated. If some of them release him, his share is emancipated, and likewise if he emancipates his share from him, it is emancipated. The disagreement regarding all of this is like the disagreement regarding whether he pays to some of them with the permission of the others. Our argument for the fact that the share of whoever releases him (4) from his right upon him is emancipated, or if he satisfies his share with the permission of his partners, is that he has released him from all of his wealth that he owed him, so it must be that emancipation follows, just as if his master had released him from all of the kitaba wealth. This differs from the case where his master releases him from part of the kitaba wealth, because he did not release him from all of his right. Our argument for the extension of his emancipation is that it is an emancipation of a portion of a slave whose emancipation is permitted, coming from a solvent person who is allowed to dispose of his property and is not under interdiction, so it must be that his emancipation extends, just as if he were a standard slave, and because it is an emancipation that occurred through his action and choice, so it extends, similar to the agreed-upon case. If it is said: In extension, there is harm (5) to the partners, because he might become incapable, and thus return to slavery. We say: If emancipation in the agreed-upon case removes established slavery, which has no kitaba in it, then it is more fitting that it removes the incidental aspect of that.

1984 - Issue: He said: (And his wala' [patronage rights] belongs to his master, and if he becomes incapable, he is a slave to the rest of the heirs.)

[Meaning to all the heirs] (1); as for when he becomes incapable and is returned to slavery, he is a slave to all the heirs,