If two [slaves] fall within the one-third, or one and part of another, Sa'd becomes free, and lots are cast between Sa'id and 'Amr regarding what remains of the one-third; because their manumission occurs at one time, and the manumission of one of them is not a condition for the manumission of the other. If two and part of a third fall within the one-third, we cast lots between them, in order to complete freedom for one of them, and for fractional ownership (tashqis) to occur in the other. If he says: "If I manumit Sa'd, then Sa'id is free," or "then Sa'id and 'Amr are both free, at the time I manumit Sa'd," the ruling is the same and does not differ; because the manumission of Sa'd is a condition for their manumission, so if part of him remained in slavery, the condition for their manumission would be missed, thus it is necessary to prioritize him. If the condition was in health and the manumission was in sickness, the ruling is according to what we have mentioned.

Section: If he says: "If I get married, then my slave is free." Then he marries during his sickness with a dowry greater than the dowry of a peer (mahr al-mithl), the excess is a discounted gift (muhabah) considered from the one-third. If nothing falls within the one-third except the discounted gift or the slave, the discounted gift takes precedence; because it became binding before the manumission, due to the marriage being a condition for his manumission, so it preceded his manumission. It is possible that they are treated as equal; because the marriage is a cause for the establishment of the discounted gift, and a condition for the manumission, so the existence of neither precedes the other, thus they are equal. Then, is manumission given precedence over the discounted gift? There are two narrations. This is in the case where the discounted gift is established, such as when the woman does not inherit from the husband; either due to the presence of an impediment to inheritance, or because he separated from her during his lifetime, either by her death, his divorce of her, or the like. As for if she inherits from him, we determine that it is not established for her except with the permission of the heirs, so it is appropriate that manumission be given precedence over it; because it is binding and not suspended upon the permission [of the heirs], so it is given precedence. If he says: "You are free at the time of my marriage." Then he marries and provides a dowry greater than the dowry of a peer, then according to the first opinion they are equal; because the marriage was made a state (23) for the occurrence of manumission, as in the manumission of Sa'd and Sa'id, and the invalidity of the discounted gift does not invalidate the marriage nor affect it. And according to the possibility I have mentioned, the manumission is preceding, because the discounted gift is only established upon the completion of the marriage, while the manumission is before its completion, so it is preceding the discounted gift; thus it is given precedence for this reason, especially if it is emphasized by its strength and the fact that it is for someone other than an heir.