the wealth of his child is more expressive in prohibiting the emancipation of his slave; for he only established the authority over him for the benefit of the child, to preserve what he has, develop it for him, and manage his interests which the child is unable to manage himself. If the purpose of those in authority is preservation, it necessitates the prevention of wasting and negligence by emancipating his property and giving it away as charity. If a man says to another's slave: "You are free from my wealth," it is nothing. If he buys him after that, he is his owned slave, and there is nothing against him. Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the generality of the jurists have said this. If news reaches a man [that a person] said to his slave: "You are free from my wealth," and he said, "I am satisfied," it is nothing. Al-Thawri and Ishaq have said this.

1946 - Issue: Abu al-Qasim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "If a slave belongs to three people, and they emancipate him together, or two deputize the third to emancipate their shares along with his share, and he does so, or each one of them emancipates his share while he is insolvent, he becomes free, and his wala' (right of patronage) is between them in thirds."

In summary, whenever a slave belongs to three people and they emancipate him together—either by themselves, by uttering his emancipation together, or by hanging his emancipation on a single condition which then occurs, or by appointing one person to emancipate him, or two of them appointing the third to emancipate him—he becomes free, and his wala' is between them according to the proportion of their shares in him. This is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Wala' belongs only to the one who emancipates." Each one of them has emancipated his share, so the wala' over him is established for him. We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding this. As for if his three masters emancipate him one after another while they are insolvent, or the first two emancipators were insolvent and the third was wealthy, the correct view is that he is emancipated for each one of them in the amount of his share, and he has his wala'. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir related two anomalous opinions regarding when an insolvent person emancipates his share: one of them is that it is void, because it is impossible for half of him to be emancipated separately, for it is impossible for a human to have half of him free and half a slave, just as it is impossible for half a woman to be divorced and half to be a wife, and there is no way to emancipate all of him, so it is all void.