scholars, including Malik, al-Shafi'i, al-Awza'i, al-Layth, and al-Thawri. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "I do not know of any disagreement among them other than them." If he sells the slave woman, and she subsequently gives birth, her child does not become free, because she gave birth to them after his ownership ceased.

Section: If he says: "The first male slave I own is free," this is built upon the issue of emancipation prior to ownership, regarding which there are two narrations. If we say it is valid to emancipate the first one he comes to own, and he then owns two, one of them is freed by lot, according to the analogy of Ahmad's view, for he said in a narration from Muhanna: "If he says: 'The first of my slaves who comes out is free,' and two or all of them come out, they shall be cast into lots." It is also possible that they are both emancipated, because the condition of priority was found in both of them, so freedom is established in both, just as if he said in a competition: "Whoever finishes first gets ten." If two finish, they share the ten. Al-Nakha'i said: "He emancipates whichever of them he wishes." Abu Hanifa said: "Neither of them is emancipated, because there is no 'first' between them; each of them is equal to the other, and a condition of priority is that the first precedes the other." Our view is that these two were not preceded by any other, so they are both 'first', like a single individual. It is not a condition of 'the first' that a second must follow him, evidenced by the case where he owns one person and owns nothing after him. Since the attribute is present in both of them, they are either both emancipated, or one of them is emancipated and designated by lot, based on what we mentioned before. The same ruling applies if he says: "The first child you give birth to is free," and she gives birth to two, and they come out together; the ruling on them is the same.

Section: If he says: "The last slave I own is free," and he owns slaves, no one of them is ruled as free until he dies; because as long as he is alive, it is possible that he might own a slave who would be the last one. When he dies, the last of them is freed, and we realize he was free from the moment he owned him, so his earnings belong to him. If it was a slave woman, her children would be free from the time she gave birth to them, because they are children of a free woman. If he had intercourse with her, he owes her a dower, because he had intercourse with a free, unrelated woman. It is not lawful for him to have intercourse with her when he owns her until he owns someone else after her, because as long as he does not own anyone else after her, she is 'the last' for the time being, and that status only ceases