it was. If he did not own twenty, the wala' of the son would not be drawn to him because his father was not emancipated. If part of him was emancipated, he would draw from the wala' of his son in proportion to that. So if the son left behind ten, and the master owned five, you would say: A portion of the slave was emancipated, and it draws from the wala' of his father an equal amount, and he obtains from his inheritance a portion along with his five, and they both equal two portions, while the remainder of the ten belongs to the master of his mother. It is then divided between the master and the mother's master in two halves. It is established that half of the slave was emancipated, and the master obtained one-fifth from the inheritance of his son, and he already had five, which is twice what was emancipated of the slave. If the son dies during the lifetime of his father before the death of the master, and he left behind wealth, and we ruled for the emancipation of the father or the emancipation of part of him, he inherits the wealth of his son if he was free, or in proportion to the freedom he possesses if part of him was free, and his master does not inherit anything from him. There is a difference of opinion regarding these issues which I have omitted mentioning, disliking excessive length.

Section: Regarding concession (muhabah) in illness. It is that one enters into a transaction with his wealth and permits the one with whom he transacted a portion of his consideration. It is of several categories: the first is concession in selling and purchasing, and this does not invalidate the validity of the contract, according to the opinion of the majority. The Ahl al-Zahir said: The contract is void. For us, the general statement of Allah Almighty: "And Allah has permitted trade" [2:275]. And because it is a disposal issued by one qualified for it regarding his own property, so it is valid, like that of one who is not ill. If he sold in his illness a slave he owns no other than, whose value is thirty for ten, he has granted a concession to the buyer of two-thirds of his wealth, and he is not permitted to grant a concession of more than one-third. If the heirs authorize that, the sale is binding. If they do not authorize it, and the buyer chooses to rescind the sale, he may do so, because the transaction has become partially invalid for him. If he chooses to execute the sale, the correct view according to me is that he takes half of the sold item for half of the price, and the sale is rescinded regarding the remainder. This is one of the two views of the companions of al-Shafi'i. The second view is that he takes two-thirds of the sold item for the entire price. The Qadi pointed to this in a similar issue.