Section: There is no difference in this regard whether the partners are Muslims or unbelievers, or if some are Muslim and some are unbelievers. The Qadi [Abu Ya'la] mentioned this, and it is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu al-Khattab said: There is a position regarding the unbeliever, that if he emancipates his share from a Muslim, it does not extend to the remainder, nor is it evaluated against him; because it is not valid for an unbeliever to purchase a Muslim slave. For us, [the evidence is] the generality of the report, and because that was established to remove harm, so the Muslim and the unbeliever are equal in it, just as in the case of returning [a slave] due to a defect. The purpose here is to complete the emancipation and to repel harm from the partner, not to acquire ownership. Unlike purchase, even if it were presumed that there is an acquisition of ownership here, it would be a presumption in the shortest of times, which occurred of necessity to achieve emancipation, and there is no harm in it. If harm were assumed, it is overwhelmed in relation to what is achieved of emancipation, so its existence is like non-existence. The analogy of this to purchase is not correct, due to the difference between them, and Allah knows best.

1948 - Issue: He said: (If they [both] emancipate him after the emancipation of the first [partner] and before the taking of the value, emancipation is not established for both of them in him; because he has become free through the emancipation of the first.)

He means that emancipation extends to the entirety of him by the verbal utterance, not by paying the value. Thus, he becomes free entirely at the moment of his utterance of emancipation, he becomes free, and the value settles as a liability upon him, so he does not become free after that through the emancipation of another. This is the view of Ibn Shubruma, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad [ibn al-Hasan], Ishaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Shafi'i in one of his views, which al-Muzani chose. Al-Zuhri, 'Amr ibn Dinar, Malik, and al-Shafi'i said in one of their views: He does not become free except by paying the value, and he is, before that, property of his owner; his [the owner's] emancipation of him is effective, but his disposal of him by means other than emancipation is not effective. This is the implication of the statement of Abu Hanifa. They argued using the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "He shall be appraised at his fair value, his partners shall be given their shares, and the entire slave shall be free." In a phrasing narrated by Abu Dawud: "If he is wealthy, he is appraised at a fair value, without deficit or excess, then he is emancipated." Thus, he rendered him a free person after the payment of the value, and because if emancipation is established with compensation, it was... [text continues].