as it cannot specify him, just as if he emancipated everyone during his terminal illness and they were not covered by the one-third of the estate, and as if he emancipated a specific individual and then forgot him, and divorce is like our issue. As for if the emancipator dies without having specified, the ruling according to us does not differ, and the heirs do not have the right to specify; rather, the one to be emancipated is brought out by lot. Al-Shafi'i has explicitly stated this if they say: We do not know which of them he emancipated. Abu Hanifa said: They have the right to specify, because they stand in the place of their predecessor. The discussion on emancipation has already preceded.

Section: If he emancipates one of his slave women, then has intercourse with one of them, the slavery does not become fixed upon her. Abu Hanifa held this view. Al-Shafi'i said: Slavery becomes fixed upon her, because in his view freedom is specified by his specification, and his intercourse is evidence of his specification. The discussion on this principle has already preceded. This is also because the emancipated one is a single individual, so she does not become specified by the intercourse, just as if he had emancipated one and then forgot her.

Section: If he emancipates one specific individual and forgets him, the analogy of Ahmad's statement is that one of them is emancipated by lot. This is the opinion of al-Layth. Al-Shafi'i said: The matter is held in abeyance until he remembers; if he dies before it becomes clear, the heirs cast lots between them. Ibn Wahb said: All of them are emancipated. Malik said: If he emancipated a slave of his and died, and did not specify, and they were three, then one-third of them is emancipated; if they were four, then one-fourth of their value is emancipated. Based on this, lots are cast between them; if the lot falls upon one whose value is less than one-fourth, the lot is repeated until it is completed. The proponents of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: If the witnesses say: We bear witness that so-and-so emancipated one of his slaves, and he did not name him, one-third of each of them is emancipated, and he works to earn the rest, or one-fourth of each of them if they were four. If they say: We bear witness that so-and-so emancipated some of his slaves, and we forgot, their testimony is void. A similar view is held by al-Sha'bi and al-Awza'i, and they did not mention what the proponents of reason mentioned regarding the testimony. Our position is that the one entitled to emancipation is not specified, so it is similar to if he had emancipated all of them in his