emancipation, so he was not complying with the command. Furthermore, his emancipation is already due for another reason, so it does not suffice him, just as if he inherited him intending by it emancipation for his expiation, or like an umm al-walad (a slave mother). The purchaser differs from the seller in two respects: first, that the seller emancipates him, while the purchaser does not emancipate him; rather, he becomes emancipated by the emancipation of the Law (al-shar'), so it is without any choice on his part. Second, the seller does not have an entitlement against him to emancipate him, whereas the purchaser is the opposite.

Section: If he owns half of a slave, then he emancipates him for his expiation, he is emancipated, and it extends to the rest of him if he is wealthy enough to afford the value of the remainder, but it does not suffice him for his expiation, according to the opinion of Abu Bakr al-Khallal and his companion, and he narrated it from Ahmad. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa; because the emancipation of his partner's share was not achieved by his act of emancipation, but rather it was achieved by the extension (al-siraya), which is not his act, but rather one of the effects of his act. Thus, it is similar to if he had purchased someone who becomes emancipated upon his ownership, intending by it the expiation. This is confirmed by the fact that he did not personally perform the emancipation except for his own share, and it extended to the other part. If he had singled out the share of another for emancipation, nothing would have been emancipated of him, and because he only owns the right to emancipate his own share, not the share of another. The Qadi said: Other companions of ours said: It suffices him if he intended the emancipation of all of him for his expiation. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because he emancipated a slave who was completely enslaved, of sound constitution, and not entitled to emancipation, intending by it the expiation, so it sufficed him, just as if the whole had been his property. The first opinion is more correct, God willing, and we do not concede that he emancipated the whole slave; rather, he emancipated his half, and the remainder was emancipated upon him, so it is similar to purchasing his relative. And because the emancipation of his remainder is due by reason of the extension, so he is like the relative. Based on this, does the emancipation of his half, which is his property, suffice him, and the other half becomes emancipated, so the expiation is completed? This depends on the ruling regarding when he emancipates the two halves of two slaves, and we will mention it, God willing the Almighty. If he intended the emancipation of his share for the expiation, and he did not intend that for his partner's share, his partner's share does not suffice him, and regarding his own share, it is as we will mention, God willing the Almighty. If he were indigent, then he emancipated his share for his expiation, it is likewise, and if he then comes to own the remainder,