1950 - Issue; He said: "If the second emancipator were insolvent, his portion of him is freed, and one-third of him remains a slave to the one who did not emancipate [if he dies and has wealth in his possession, one-third of it belongs to the one who did not emancipate] and two-thirds belong to the first emancipator and the second emancipator by virtue of wala' (clientage), if there is no heir more entitled than they two."
This is only the case because an insolvent person only emancipates his own share, and both the first and the second are insolvent, so nothing is freed for either of them except their own share. Their shares together amount to two-thirds, and one-third of him remains a slave to the third party. Thus, when the slave leaves behind wealth, one-third of it belongs to the one who did not emancipate, because he is the owner of one-third of him, and two-thirds are an inheritance, because he owned them by virtue of his free portion. If he has a relative heir, he inherits all of his wealth, taking it, because he is more entitled than the emancipator. If he has no relative heir, it belongs to the two emancipators by virtue of wala'. If he has a sharer heir who inherits a portion, he takes his prescribed share from it, and the remainder belongs to the two emancipators. This position applies when the owner of his one-third share did not share the slave's earnings with him during his lifetime, nor did he enter into a turn-based agreement (muhaya'ah) with him. However, if he did share with him or enter into a turn-based agreement, he has no right to his estate, because it was acquired through the free portion, so all of it becomes an inheritance for his heirs, not the owner of his one-third share, since he has no right to the free portion, and therefore has no right to what he earned nor what he possessed.
Section: As for those who assert the validity of al-si'ayah (working for payment), he is to be made to work for payment when the first party emancipates him. When the second party emancipates his share, this is built upon the position regarding his freedom: was it realized by the first emancipation or not? Whoever considers him free does not deem the second emancipation valid, because he was freed by the first emancipation. Whoever does not consider him free deems the second emancipation valid, because he emancipated a portion that was owned by him from a slave. If he dies before performing his si'ayah, he has died while one-third of him is a slave, so his ruling regarding inheritance is the same as the ruling we mentioned in the other position.
Section: When we rule that part of him is free and part of him is a slave, his maintenance during his lifetime, his fitrah (obligatory alms at the end of Ramadan), and his earnings are divided between him and his master according to the extent of the freedom and slavery within him. If they agree on a turn-based arrangement (muhaya'ah) between them, the slave's maintenance and his earnings during his (the slave's free) days belong to him and are his obligation, and during his master's days, his earnings belong to his master.
(1) Omitted from: B. (See) note. (2) In M, there is an addition: "bihi" (by it/him). (3) In the original: "bi-i'taqihi" (by his emancipation). (4) In the original, A, and B: "sahha" (it was valid). (5) In B and M: "hukm" (ruling).
١٩٥٠ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَلَوْ كَانَ الْمُعْتِقُ الثَّانِى مُعْسِرًا، عَتَقَ نَصِيبُهُ مِنْهُ، وكَانَ ثُلُثُهُ رَقِيقًا لِمَنْ لَمْ يُعْتِقْ، [فَإِنْ مَاتَ وَفِى يَدهِ مَالٌ كَانَ ثُلُثُهُ لِمَنْ لَمْ يُعْتِقْ] (١)، وَثُلُثاهُ لِلْمُعْتِقِ الْأَوَّلِ وَالْمُعْتِقِ الثَّانِى بِالوَلَاءِ، إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ وَارِثٌ أَحَقُّ مِنْهُمَا)
إنَّما كان كذلكَ؛ لِأَنَّ الْمُعْسِرَ لا يُعْتِقُ إِلَّا نَصِيبَه، وَالأوَّلُ وَالثَّانِى مُعْسِرَانِ، فلم يَعْتِقْ على كُلِّ وَاحِدٍ إِلَّا نَصِيبُه، وَنِصيبُهما الثُّلثانِ، وبَقِىَ ثُلثُهُ رَقِيقًا لِلثَّالِثِ، فَإِذا خَلَّفَ الْعَبْدُ مَالًا، فثُلثُه للذى لم يُعْتِقْ؛ لأَنَّه مَالِكٌ لِثُلثِهِ، وثُلثَاه مِيراثٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ مَلَكَهُما بجُزْئِه الْحُرِّ، فَإِنْ كانَ لهُ وارِثٌ نَسِيبٌ، يَرِثُ مالَهُ كُلَّه، أَخَذَه؛ لأَنَّه أحقُّ مِنَ المُعْتِقِ، وإِن لم يكُنْ له وارِثٌ نَسِيبٌ فهو للمُعْتِقَيْنِ بالوَلاءِ، وِإنْ كان له ذو فَرْضٍ يَرِثُ البَعْضَ، أخَذَ فَرْضَه منه، وباقِيهِ للمُعْتِقَيْن. وهذا القَوْلُ فيما إِذا لم يَكُنْ مالِكُ ثُلثِه قاسَمَ الْعَبْدَ فى حياتِهِ كَسْبَه، ولم يُهايِئْهُ، فأمَّا إن قاسَمَه، أو هَايَأَهُ، فلا حَقَّ له فى تَركَتِه، لِأَنَّها حصَلَتْ بالجُزْءِ الحُرِّ، فتَكونُ جميعُها مِيراثًا لِوَرَثَتِه، دون مالِكِ ثُلثِهِ، إِذْ لا حَقَّ له فى الجُزْءِ الحُرِّ، فلا يكونُ له حَقٌّ فيما كسَبَهُ (٢)، ولا فيما مَلَكَه (٢).
فصل: ومَنْ قال بالسِّعايَةِ، فإِنَّهُ يُسْتَسْعَى حينَ أعْتَقَه الأوَّلُ، فإذا أعْتَقَ الثَّانِى نَصيبَه، انْبَنَى ذلِكَ على القوْلِ فى حُرِّيَّتِه، هل حصَلَتْ بإعْتاقِ (٣) الأَوَّلِ أو لا؟ فمَنْ جَعَلَه حُرًّا، لم يُصَحِّح عِتْقَ الثَّانِى؛ لأَنَّه عَتَقَ بإِعْتاقِ الأَوَّلِ، ومَنْ لَمْ يَجْعَلْه حُرًّا، صحَّحَ (٤) عِتْقَ الثَّانى؛ لِأَنَّه أَعتَقَ جُزْءً مملوكًا له مِنْ عَبْدٍ. وإذا مات قبلَ أداءِ سِعايَتِه فقد مات وثُلُثُه رَقيقٌ، فيَكونُ حُكْمُه فى الميراثِ كحُكْمِ (٥) ما ذَكَرْنا فى القَوْلِ الآخَرِ.
فصل: وإذا حكَمْنا بعِتْقِ بعْضِه، ورِقِّ باقِيهِ، فإِنَّ نفقَتَه فى حياتِهِ، وفِطْرَتَه، وأكْسابَه، بَيْنَه وبينَ سَيِّدِه على قَدْرِ ما فيه مِنَ الحُرِّيَّةِ والرِّقِّ. وإِنْ تَراضَيا على المُهَايَأَةِ بينَهما، كانَتْ نَفَقَةُ الْعَبْدِ كسْبُه فى أيَّامِه له وعليه، وفى أيَّامِ سَيِّدِه يكونُ كَسْبُه لِسَيِّدِه،
(١) سقط من: ب. نقل نظر.(٢) فى م زيادة: "به".(٣) فى الأصل: "بإعتاقه".(٤) فى الأصل، أ، ب: "صح".(٥) فى ب، م: "حكم".
