Section: If he declares the emancipation of three, or makes a bequest to emancipate them, and one of them dies during his lifetime, his declaration and the bequest regarding him are void, and lots are cast between the two living ones, and one-third of them is emancipated. This is because it is not possible to rule that emancipation occurred for the deceased, as he died before the time at which he would be emancipated and before the condition of emancipation was realized. This is contrary to the preceding case, for emancipation occurred from the time of the declaration, and the drawing of lots merely clarifies and reveals it; therefore, his emancipation is effective from the time of the declaration, such that his earnings belong to him, and his status is that of a free person in all his affairs. If the mudeebar (slave granted conditional emancipation at the owner's death) dies after his master's death, lots are cast between him and the living ones, because emancipation has been realized from the time of the master's death.

1958 - Issue: He said: "And if he said to them during his terminal illness: One of you is free, or: All of you are free, and he dies, then the rule is the same."

As for his saying to them: All of you are free, that is the issue which has preceded and which we have explained. As for his saying: One of you is free, lots are cast between them, one of them is brought out by the lot and becomes free, and the others remain slaves. This is regardless of whether the deceased has wealth other than them or not, provided it is covered by the one-third of the estate. If it is not covered by the one-third of the wealth, then emancipation occurs to the extent of the one-third. If the one emancipating were alive and did not intend one specific individual, he would not have the right to specify, and one of them would be emancipated by lot. If he said: I intended one of them specifically, it is accepted from him, and the status of freedom becomes fixed for him. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i said: He has the right to specify one of them, so the one he designates is emancipated, even if he had not intended him at the time of the statement. The emancipator is requested to specify, and when he specifies one of them, his choice becomes final, and the other slaves have no right to object to him, because he had the right to specify the emancipation from the beginning, so when he issued it without specification, he had the right to specify it, like divorce. Our position is that the one entitled to emancipation is not specified, so he has no right to specify him.