Section: If two people buy a slave, and one of them is absent, and the other comes to claim his share of him, he is entitled to that. Abu Hanifa said: He is not entitled to that, because he cannot take delivery of him without taking delivery of the absent party's share, and he has no right to take delivery of it without his permission. Our view is that he has claimed his portion, so he is entitled to it, just as if [the seller] had obligated it to each one of them separately. What they mentioned is invalidated by this case. If the present party says, "I will pay the entire price and you will hand over the entire slave to me," he is not entitled to do so. Abu Hanifa said: He is entitled to that. Our view is that his partner did not permit the present party to take possession of his share, nor did he permit the seller to hand it over to him, so neither of them is entitled to that, just as if they were both present. If it is handed over to him, and the slave perishes, the absent party has the right to hold either of them liable for it; because the one who handed him over was negligent by handing over his property without his permission, and the partner took possession of someone else's property without his permission. If the partner is held liable, he may not seek compensation from anyone, because the destruction occurred in his possession, so the liability settled upon him. If the one who handed him over is held liable, he may seek compensation from the one who took possession of it for that reason. It is my considered view that when it is not possible to deliver the share of one of the two purchasers to him without delivering his companion's share, then delivery to him is not permissible, for the reason we mentioned here.

Section: It is recommended to have witnesses (ishhad) for a sale, due to the saying of God, the Almighty: {And bring witnesses when you trade} [Quran 2:282] (86). The lowest level of the command is recommendation. It is also because it is more decisive in ending disputes and further from mutual denial, so it is preferable. This is specific to things of importance. As for things of little importance, such as the wares of a grocer, a perfume seller, and their like, it is not recommended for them because contracts for them (87) are numerous, making it burdensome to have witnesses for them, and it is unseemly to produce evidence for them or to litigate before a judge over them, unlike those of great importance. Having witnesses is not obligatory for either party, nor is it a condition for it. This was narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and it is the position of al-Shafi'i, the Ahl al-Ra'y (the jurists of reasoning), Ishaq, and Abu Ayyub. A group said: It is an obligation that may not be abandoned. This was narrated from Ibn Abbas. Among those who held the view that having witnesses for a sale is required are 'Ata, Jabir ibn Zayd, and al-Nakha'i.