emancipation, nor did he initiate (18) it; rather, the cause (19) was from his father, and this one is narrating from his father, confirming his action, so he is like a witness. Furthermore, the confirmer asserts that his brother's share is also free because he has already received from the slave the same amount that he [the confirmer] received, so the payment of the kitaba money was achieved to both of them together, and thus the entirety of him was emancipated by that. The wala' (right of patronage) of this half belongs to the confirmer because his brother does not claim it, while this confirmer claims that the entirety of him was emancipated by the kitaba, and this wala' which is on this half is my share of the wala'. The followers of Al-Shafi'i said: There are two views regarding this; one of them is like our view, and the second (20) is that the wala' is between the two of them because it is established for their predecessor, so it belongs to both of them by inheritance. The correct view is what we have stated, for the reasons we mentioned. It is not impossible (21) for the wala' to be established for the father while one of the two sons is specified to have it, just as if one of them claimed a debt owed to their father by a person, and the other denied it; the claimant takes his share of the debt and is specified to have it to the exclusion of his brother, even though he inherits it from the father. The same applies if they claimed it together and produced one witness for it, and one of them swore along with the witness while the other refused. If one of them emancipates his share, it is emancipated, and it extends to the rest of him if he is wealthy. This is the view of Al-Khiraqi, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whoever emancipates his share of a slave, and he possesses enough to cover the value of the slave, the slave shall be valued at a fair price, and his partners shall be given their shares." (22) Furthermore, because he is a wealthy person who emancipated his share of a jointly-owned slave, it extends to the rest of him, just as with one who is not a mukatab. Abu Bakr and Al-Qadi said: Only his share is emancipated because if the emancipator is the confirmer, he is executing [his own right], and if he is the denier, it does not extend (23) to the share of the confirmer because he is a mukatab to someone else, and in the spreading of emancipation to him is an invalidation of the cause of wala' over him, so that is not permissible.

1985 - Issue: He said: (The mukatab is not prevented from traveling.)

Its summary is that the mukatab is not prevented from traveling, whether it is near or far. This (1) is the view of Al-Sha'bi,