The second [opinion] is that he becomes entirely free, and the value of the share of the one who did not emancipate remains as a liability upon the emancipator, to be pursued when he becomes wealthy, just as if he had destroyed it. These two opinions are anomalous; they were not stated by anyone whose opinion is held as evidence, nor is reliance placed upon his school of thought. Both are refuted by the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whoever emancipates a share he has in a slave, and possesses wealth that reaches the price of the slave, the slave shall be appraised at his fair value, his partners shall be given their shares, and the entire slave shall be emancipated. Otherwise, he is emancipated to the extent that he has been emancipated." This is agreed upon. If it is established that only his share is emancipated for the insolvent person, the remainder of the slave remains in slavery. Then, if his owner emancipates him, he becomes free by his emancipation, and each of them has the wala' of what he emancipated, because wala' belongs to the one who emancipates. Emancipation differs from divorce, because it is impossible for a woman to be shared, nor can marriage be applied to a portion of her, nor can she be for more than one [husband]. Its analogy is when a slave belongs to one person, and he emancipates a part of him; then he becomes entirely free.

Section: If each of the partners says to the slave: "If you enter the house, my share of you is free," and he enters, he becomes free for all of them, whether they said that all at once or in separate instances; because the emancipation of their shares takes place all at once, even if the times of their conditioning differ.

1947 - Issue: He said: "If one of them emancipates him while he is wealthy, he becomes entirely free, and his two partners have a claim against him for the value of their two-thirds."

In summary, when a partner emancipates his share of a slave while he is wealthy, his share is emancipated. We know of no disagreement regarding this, due to the tradition concerning it, and because he is one who has the capacity for legal action and has emancipated his own property, which is not attached to the right of another, so it takes effect, just as if he had emancipated the entire slave owned by him. When he emancipates his share, the emancipation extends to the entirety of him, so he becomes entirely free, and the emancipator is liable for the value of his partners' shares, and the wala' belongs to him. This is the opinion of Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, Ibn Shubruma, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Ishaq. Al-Batti said: Only the share of the emancipator is emancipated, and the share of the remainder stays in slavery, and there is nothing against the emancipator.