that his partner has received the price, he has no right to demand anything from him, because he is not an agent for him in the receipt, so his receipt is not binding for him. This is what some of our companions have mentioned, and in my view, his testimony for him is not accepted, because he is warding off from himself the harm of his partner sharing with him in what he receives from the buyer. If he does not have (23) evidence and swears an oath, he takes half the price from the buyer; if he refuses to swear, the buyer takes half from him.

Section: If a slave is owned by two people, and a man usurps one of their shares by taking control of the slave and preventing one of them from utilizing him while not the other, and then the owner of the half and the usurper sell the slave in a single transaction, it is valid regarding the owner's share and void regarding the usurper's share. If the partner appoints the usurper as an agent, or the usurper appoints the partner as an agent in the sale, and he sells the entire slave in one transaction, it is void regarding the usurper's share, according to the correct view. Does it remain valid regarding the partner's share? There are two narrations, based on the division of the transaction; because the transaction here took place as one, and since the sale was void in part of it, it is void in the rest of it. This is contrary to when the owner and the usurper sell [separately], for those are two contracts, because a single person's contract with two people constitutes two contracts. If the usurper mentioned to the buyer that he is an agent (24) for his half, it would be valid regarding the share of the person who granted permission, because it is like a separate contract.

Section: If two men have a debt due to a single cause—either a contract, inheritance, consumption, or otherwise—and one of them receives something from it, the other has the right to share with him in it. This is the apparent view of the school (Madhab). It has been narrated from Ahmad that which indicates that one of them may take his right without his companion, and the other does not share with him in what he has taken. This is the opinion of Abu al-'Aliyah, Abu Qilabah, Ibn Sirin, and Abu 'Ubayd. It was said to Ahmad: "I and my companion sold a commodity belonging to me and him, and he gave me my right and said: 'This is your right specifically, and I will give your partner later.'" He said: "That is not permissible." It was said to him: "What if he delays it or absolves him of his right without his partner?" He said: "That is permissible." It was said: "Abu 'Ubayd said: 'He may take it without his partner if he is permitted to delay it and absolve him without his'