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.