The lessee is entitled to obtain its usufruct until the expiration of its term, just as if he had married off his slave-girl and then sold her. If the buyer was unaware of that, he has the right of annulment because it is a defect. If he emancipates the slave during the term, the emancipation takes effect, because he is his property, his sale is valid, therefore his emancipation is valid [even if it affects] someone else. The person who reconciled is entitled to obtain his usufruct during the term, because he emancipated him after having granted his usufruct to someone else, so it is like the case where one emancipates a slave-girl married to a free man. The slave does not have recourse against his master for anything, because his ownership was only terminated by the emancipation regarding the neck (physical ownership), while the usufructs were already owned by someone else at that time; thus, his usufructs were not destroyed by the emancipation, and he has no recourse for anything. Even if he emancipated him while deprived of usufruct, he would have no recourse for anything, just as if he emancipated a person suffering from a chronic illness or whose hands were severed, or emancipated a slave-girl who is married. The Qadi and Ibn 'Aqil mentioned another perspective: that he has recourse against his master for the equivalent wage (ajr al-mithl). This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because emancipation necessitates the removal of his ownership of both the neck and the usufruct entirely. Since the usufruct is not obtained for the slave here, it is as if he stood between him and his usufruct. Our argument is that his emancipation did not encounter for the emancipator anything other than the ownership of the neck, so it did not affect anything else, just as if one bequeathed to a man the neck of a slave and to another his usufruct, and the owner of the neck emancipated him, and just as if he emancipated a married slave-girl. Their statement that it necessitates the removal of ownership of the usufruct—we say: this only applies if it was owned by him; however, if it was owned by someone else, his emancipation does not necessitate the removal of what does not exist. If it becomes clear that the slave is claimed by another (mustahaqq), the reconciliation is proven void due to the corruption of the consideration, and the claimant reclaims what he had acknowledged for him. If he finds the slave defective with a defect that reduces the usufruct, he has the right to return him and annul the reconciliation. If he reconciles for the slave himself, the reconciliation is valid, and it is a sale. The ruling in the event that he turns out to be claimed by another or a defect appears in him is as we have mentioned.

Section: If he lays claim to a crop in a man's possession, and he acknowledges it for him, then he reconciles with him for it for dirhams, it is permissible according to the manner in which the sale of a crop is permissible. We have already mentioned this in the chapter on sales. If the crop is in the possession of two men, and one of them acknowledges half of it for him, then he reconciles with him for it before its grains have hardened, it is not permissible; because if he reconciles with him for it on the condition of leaving it [to mature], or without the condition of cutting it, it is not permissible, because it is not permissible to sell it in such a manner. If he stipulates cutting it, it is not permissible, because he cannot cut it without cutting the other's crop.