is owned by his master, and this has been validated in that case, so it is the same here. This interpretation is the most apparent, God willing, because it does not require metaphorical interpretation; and whenever it is possible to interpret speech according to its literal meaning, it is not permissible to interpret it metaphorically without evidence. Once this is established, whenever a slave purchases himself from his masters, he becomes free, because the sale removes him from their ownership and no other ownership is established over him. However, in this case, he does not become free until the receipt [of payment] occurs, because we have classified it as emancipation conditional upon receipt. It is for this reason that al-Khiraqi said: "The slave has become free by the testimony of the two partners who testified to the receipt." Had he become free by the sale, he would have become free by their admission of it, not by the testimony of receipt. Whenever one of them denies receiving his share of the price, and his two partners testify against him, and they are both just, their testimony is accepted, because they are two just persons who testified for the slave regarding the performance of what leads to his emancipation; thus, their testimony is accepted, like that of two outsiders. The one against whom the testimony is given then seeks recourse against them and shares with them in what they took, because they admitted to taking two-thirds of the slave's price, and the slave is jointly owned by them, so his price must be shared among them. Furthermore, because that which is in the slave's hand belongs to them, and what they took was in his hand, it is necessary that all of them share in it, and it must be distributed equally among them. Their testimony in a matter from which they derive a benefit is not accepted, and preventing his sharing with them is a benefit for them; therefore, their testimony regarding that was not accepted, but their testimony was accepted regarding what the slave benefits from, other than what they benefit from, just as if one acknowledged something for others in which they themselves have a benefit; for their acknowledgment is accepted in what is against them, but not in what belongs to them. The analogy of the Madhhab is that their testimony against their partner regarding receipt is not accepted, because they are thereby warding off a liability from themselves, and anyone who testifies with testimony by which he draws a benefit to himself, his testimony is invalidated in its entirety. This is only accepted in an acknowledgment because justice is not a condition therein, and suspicion does not prevent its validity, unlike testimony. According to this analogy, the share of the two witnesses is emancipated by their acknowledgment, while the share of the one against whom they testified remains...