For the mukatab is his slave, so his testimony for him is not accepted, like that of his mudabbar (slave promised freedom upon the owner's death), and because the master benefits from what accrues to the mukatab; for if he becomes unable [to pay], it reverts to him, and if he does not become unable, it is easier for him to fulfill his payment to him. If he testifies against his mukatab regarding any of that, his testimony is accepted, because he is not suspected [of bias], so it resembles testimony against his own child.

880 - Issue: He said: "And if there is a house among three people, one of them owning half of it, another a third, and the other a sixth, and one of them sells, the right of preemption is between the two individuals according to the proportion of their shares."

The correct view in the school (Madhab) is that when the preemptors take the shiqs (the share subject to preemption), it is divided between them according to the proportion of their holdings. This was chosen by Abu Bakr. It is narrated from al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, and 'Ata'. Malik, Sawwar, al-'Anbari, Ishaq, and Abu 'Ubayd also held this view. It is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. From Ahmad, there is a second narration that it is divided between them according to the number of heads. Ibn 'Aqil chose this. It is narrated from al-Nakha'i and al-Sha'bi. Ibn Abi Layla, Ibn Shubruma, al-Thawri, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) held this view, because if each one of them were alone, he would deserve the whole, so if they gather, they are equal, like children in inheritance, and like the manumitted in the spreading of manumission (sara'iyat al-'itq). Our evidence is that it is a right acquired by virtue of ownership, so it is according to the proportion of ownership, like yield. Their argument is invalidated by the son and the father or grandfather, by the grandfather with siblings, by the cavalry with the infantry in the spoils of war, and by creditors and legatees if his wealth is less than the debt of one of them, or the third is less than the bequest of one of them. It differs from tangible assets (al-a'yan); for that is destruction, and in destruction the small and the large are treated equally, like impurity cast into a liquid. As for the children, they are equal in the cause, which is filiation, so they are equal in inheritance by virtue of it.