is valued according to a just valuation." This is included in its generality, and because it is an emancipation of a part of a slave by a wealthy [person] who is not under interdiction, so it extends to the rest of him, just as if he were a completely owned slave (qinn). Furthermore, the requirement for extension is realized, and the preventive factor for it has not been established; for there is no textual evidence (nass) regarding it, nor is there an original principle (asl) to which it could be analogized, so it is necessary that it be established. As for their statement that it leads to the nullification of the wala' (right of patronage): We say that if emancipation has an effect in nullifying fixed and established ownership, of which the wala' is one of its effects, then its having an effect in transferring the wala' on its own is more deserving. Moreover, if a person were to emancipate a slave who has children from an emancipated woman of a tribe, he would transfer their wala' to himself. If he can transfer their wala' which was established by the emancipation of others, then his transferring a wala' that has not yet been established by the emancipation of the one upon whom the wala' falls is more deserving. Furthermore, he transferred the wala' in that [previous case] from one who did not pay him compensation, so his transferring it with compensation is more deserving. Thus, the transfer of wala' in the situation of dragging (jarr) the wala' points to the extension of emancipation. The wala' is transferred to the emancipator because he has more right than the other in three respects: First, that the wala' there is established, while here it is in a state of potentiality. Second, that the transfer there occurred by the emancipation of someone else, while here it is by his own emancipation. Third, that it was transferred there without compensation, while here it is with compensation.

Section: If the emancipator is indigent, his emancipation does not extend, and his share becomes free, while the rest remains under the kitaba contract. If he performs it, he is freed for both of them, and his wala' is between them. If he is unable to perform it, the mukatab part returns to being a completely owned slave, except according to the narration which says: The slave is made to seek earnings (yustas'a). For he is made to seek earnings upon his inability regarding the value of the remainder, and he is not made to seek earnings during the state of the kitaba contract, because the kitaba contract is a form of earning regarding what they agreed upon, so it dispenses with the need for seeking earnings regarding what requires valuation. Thus, when he is unable to perform it and the kitaba contract is rescinded, it becomes void, and he returns to seeking earnings for the value. And Allah knows best.

Section: It was transmitted from Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, that he was asked about a slave owned by two partners, and they made a kitaba contract with him for one thousand dirhams. He paid them nine hundred; four hundred and fifty dirhams to this one and four hundred and fifty dirhams to this one. Then one of them emancipated his share? He said: If