And intending her for divorce is like intending the other, and the occurrence of death to her does not necessitate a divorce for the other, so she remains upon what she was before. The discussion regarding the suspension of emancipation is like the discussion regarding the suspension of divorce. So when tomorrow arrives, and he has sold some of the slaves, he draws lots between him and the other slaves; if it falls upon the sold one, none of them are emancipated. According to the opinion of Al-Qadi, it is proper that the emancipation be specified among the remainder, and likewise it is proper that it be the school of Abu Hanifah and Al-Shafi'i, because he has the [power of] specification of emancipation according to them by his statement, so the sale of one of them is a diversion of the emancipation away from him, so it becomes specified in the remainder. And if he sold half of the slave, he draws lots between him and the remainder; if the lot of emancipation falls upon him, half of him is emancipated, and it extends to his remainder if the emancipator is wealthy, and if he is insolvent, only his half is emancipated.

Section: And if he says: "My wife is divorced, and my slave-woman is free," while having multiple wives and slave-women, and he intends by that a specific one, it is directed to her. And if he intends an indefinite one, she is ambiguous among them. And if he does not intend anything, Abu al-Khattab said: All his wives are divorced, and his slave-women are emancipated; because the singular [noun] added [to a possessive] may mean the whole, like His saying, the Almighty: "And if you count the favor of Allah, you will not be able to enumerate it" [Quran 16:18], and "It has been made permissible for you the night of fasting" [Quran 2:187]. And because that is narrated from Ibn Abbas. The group said: It falls upon one indefinite one, and its ruling is the ruling of what [would be] if he said: "One of you is divorced, and one of you is free"; because the singular expression is not used for the plural except metaphorically, and speech is for its literal meaning as long as no evidence redirects it from it. And if the two probabilities were equal, it would be necessary to restrict it to the one, because it is the certainty, so the ruling is not established in what exceeds it based on a doubtful matter, and this is more correct. And Allah knows best.