Then a judge passed judgment based on their testimony, and the slave became free. Then two other people testified to the emancipation of another slave, which constitutes a third of his wealth. Then the first two retracted their testimony. We look at the date of their testimony; if it was prior and the heirs did not belie their retraction, the first slave becomes free, their retraction is not accepted, and they are not liable for anything. It is possible that they may be required to purchase the second slave and emancipate him, because they prevented his emancipation through their testimony which was subsequently retracted. If they (the heirs) verified their (the witnesses') retraction and belied their testimony, the second slave becomes free, and they (the heirs) may seek recourse against them for the value of the first, because they caused the loss of his servitude to them through their testimony which was retracted. If the date of their testimony was later than the other testimony, the emancipation of the one judged to be free is nullified, because we have determined that the deceased had already emancipated a third of his wealth before his (the second one's) emancipation, and the two witnesses are not liable for anything because they did not cause the loss of anything. If they were absolute, or one of them, or their dates coincided, lots are cast between them; if it falls upon the second, he becomes free and the emancipation of the first is nullified, and there is no liability upon the two witnesses, because the first remains in a state of servitude. If the lot of the first is drawn, he becomes free, and we look at the heirs; if they belied the first two witnesses regarding their testimony, the second becomes free, and they seek recourse against the two witnesses for the value of the first, because they caused the loss of his servitude without right. If they belied them in their retraction, they do not seek recourse against them for anything, because they (the heirs) acknowledge the emancipation of the one judged to be free.

1957 - Issue: He said: (If he has three slaves, and he emancipates them during his death-sickness, or grants them tadbir, or grants one of them tadbir and bequeaths the emancipation of the other two, and only one of them comes out of his third—due to the equality of their values—lots are cast between them with one share of freedom and two shares of servitude, and whoever receives the share of freedom becomes free to the exclusion of his two companions.)

The sum of this is that emancipation during death-sickness, tadbir, and the bequest of emancipation, are considered as coming out of the third, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not allow the emancipation of the one who emancipated six slaves during his sickness, except for a third of them. This is because it is a donation of wealth, similar to a gift. If he emancipates more than a third, it is not valid except for the third. If he emancipates slaves during his sickness, one after another, it begins with the first and then the next, until the third is fulfilled. If the emancipation occurs all at once and they do not come out of the third, lots are cast between them, and the third is determined by drawing lots. This is al-Khiraqi’s issue regarding when the emancipation occurs all at once and he has no wealth other than them. As for if he grants them tadbir, the one mentioned first and the one mentioned last are equal, because tadbir is an emancipation suspended upon a condition, which is death, and when the condition is met, the conditioned event is established at the same time. Similarly, the one bequeathed for emancipation is equal to the tadbir; because all of it is emancipation after death. So, whenever he emancipates three slaves of equal value—who constitute his entire wealth—all at once, or grants them tadbir, or bequeaths their emancipation, or grants some of them tadbir and bequeaths the emancipation of the remainder, and the heirs do not permit more than the third, lots are cast between them with one share of freedom and two shares of servitude. Whoever receives the share of freedom becomes free, and his two companions remain in servitude. This was the opinion of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Aban ibn Uthman, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Dawud, and Ibn Jarir. Abu Hanifa said: A third of each one becomes free, and he must work to earn his remaining value. A similar view is reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Shurayh, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Qatada, and Hammad; because they are equal in the cause of entitlement, so they are equal in the entitlement, as if he owned a third of them alone, which is a third of his wealth, or as if he bequeathed each one of them to a man. The companions of Abu Hanifa rejected the drawing of lots and said: It is gambling and a judgment of the Age of Ignorance (Jahiliyya). Perhaps they reject the report narrated regarding this issue because of its contradiction to the analogy (qiyas) of the principles. The hadith was mentioned to Hammad, so he said: This is the speech of the Shaytan—meaning Iblis. Muhammad ibn Dhakwan said to him: The pen is lifted from three; one of whom is the insane person until he recovers—meaning you are...)