Section: If one of the two partners says to his partner: "When you emancipate your share, my share is free along with your share," and he then he emancipates his share, they both become free together, and nothing is incumbent upon the emancipator. It is said: The whole becomes free upon the emancipator, because the emancipation of his share is a condition for the emancipation of his partner's share, so it must necessarily precede it. The first view is more appropriate, because it was possible to act in accordance with the requirement of his condition, so it was mandatory to apply it, just as if he had appointed him as an agent to emancipate his share along with his own, and he emancipated them both together. If he says: "When you emancipate your share, my share is free," our companions said: If he emancipates his share, it spreads (sari), the whole becomes free upon him, it is appraised against him, and the emancipation of his partner does not take effect, because the spreading (sariyah) occurred first, thus preventing the emancipation of the partner. It is possible that it should be free upon them both, because the emancipation of his share is a cause for the spreading and a condition for the emancipation of the partner's share, so neither preceded the other, since they exist at the same time. The occurrence of the partner's emancipation might be preferred, because it is a disposition by him of his own property, whereas spreading occurs in non-property, which is contrary to the original principle; thus, the implementation of the partner's emancipation is more appropriate. Also, because the spreading of emancipation is contrary to the original principle, as it is a destruction of the property of an inviolable person without his consent and imposing on the emancipator a penalty he did not choose to bear; it is only established for the benefit of completing the emancipation, so when this benefit is achieved by the owner's emancipation, it is more appropriate. If he says: "When you emancipate your share, my share is free before your share," and he emancipates his share, they both become free together upon them both. Likewise, if he says: "When you emancipate your share, my share is free before you emancipate your share," they both occur together when he emancipates his share. This is the implication of the statement of Abu Bakr and the Qadi. The implication of Ibn Aqil's statement is that the whole should become free upon the emancipator, and the emancipation of his partner should not take effect, because it is an emancipation at a past time. The implication of the statement of Ibn Surayj and those who agreed with him, from among those who hold the view of the spreading of emancipation, is that his emancipation should not be valid, because it would necessitate that the emancipation of the partner and its spreading precede his own; therefore, the emancipation of this share is prevented, and the emancipation of the partner's share is also prevented, leading to a circular argument, so the whole is prevented. This discussion has already passed in the issues of divorce. And Allah the Most High knows best.

1949 - Issue: He said: (And if the first emancipates it while he is poor, and the second emancipates it while he is wealthy, his share and his partner's share become free upon him, and one-third of his wala' (right of patronage) belongs to the first emancipator, and two-thirds belong to the second emancipator.)

The apparent position of the school is that if the poor person emancipates his share of the slave, the emancipation is established in it and does not spread to the share of his partner; rather, it remains in servitude. Then, when the second person emancipates his share while he is wealthy, all that remains of him becomes free upon him—his share by direct action, and the share of the third partner by spreading—and two-thirds of the wala' become his, and one-third belongs to the first. This is the position of Ishaq, Abu 'Ubayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Dawud, and Ibn Jarir. It is also the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i, according to the method we established from their statements previously. It is narrated from 'Urwah that he bought a slave whose half had been emancipated, and 'Urwah used to alternate with him: one month as a slave and one month as a free man. It is narrated from Ahmad that if a poor person emancipates his share, the slave is required to work for the value of the share of the others until he fulfills it, and then he becomes free. This is the position of Ibn Shubrumah, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Awza'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad, based on what Abu Hurayrah narrated: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever emancipates a portion he owns in a slave must emancipate the whole if he has wealth, and if he does not, the slave is required to work [without being burdened]." Agreed upon, and Abu Dawud narrated it. Ibn Abi Layla and Ibn Shubrumah said: So when he is required to work...