whether he is solvent or insolvent. Abu al-Khattab mentioned a view that his tadbir extends if he is solvent, and the share of his partner is appraised against him. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, because he became entitled to emancipation upon the death of his master, so it extends to him, like istilad (making a slave a mother of one's child). Al-Shafi'i has two sayings, like the two madhhabs. Our position is that it is a suspension of emancipation upon a condition, so it does not extend, like suspending it upon entering the house. It differs from istilad, for it is more emphatic; this is why he is emancipated from the entire wealth. If she kills her master, the ruling of her istilad is not voided, and selling her is not permitted, whereas the mudabbar is contrary to that. Accordingly, if the mudabbar dies, his share is emancipated if it comes from the third [of the estate]. Does it extend to his partner's share if he is solvent? There are two narrations [of Ahmad] regarding this, which al-Khiraqi mentioned in a place other than this. If the partner emancipates his share before the death of the mudabbar while he is solvent, he is emancipated, and it extends to the share of the mudabbar. The Qadi and Abu al-Khattab mentioned two views regarding this. Al-Shafi'i has two sayings regarding it; one of them is like our saying, and the second is that his emancipation does not extend. This is the saying of Abu Hanifa, because the mudabbar had become entitled to wala' (patronage) over the slave upon his death, so the other had no right to invalidate it. Our evidence is his (peace be upon him) statement: "Whoever emancipates a share that he has in a slave, and he possesses what reaches the value of the slave, the slave shall be valued at his fair market value, and his partners shall be given their shares; otherwise, he has been emancipated to the extent that he was emancipated." Also, because if it extends to invalidating ownership—which is more emphatic than wala'—then wala' takes precedence. What they mentioned has no basis, and it is invalidated by the case where he suspends the emancipation of his share upon a condition.

Section: If each of the two partners declares the tadbir of his share, and one of them dies, his share is emancipated, and the share of the other remains under tadbir, if his third [of the estate] does not suffice to cover the value of his partner's share. If it does suffice, does the emancipation extend to it? There are two narrations. If each of them says, "If we die, you are free," Abu Bakr said: Ahmad said: "If one of them dies, his share is free." The apparent meaning of this is that Ahmad considered this phrasing a tadbir by each of them of his own share, and its meaning is "If each of us dies, his share is free"; for he matched the collective with the collective, so it reverts to matching the part with the part, like his saying: "The people rode their animals, wore their garments, and took their spears," meaning each person wore his garment, rode his animal, and took his spear. Similarly, if he said: "They emancipated their slaves," it would mean that each one of them emancipated his slave. The Qadi said: This is a suspension of freedom upon their death together, and Ahmad only said: "His share is emancipated," based on the premise that the existence of part of the condition fulfills the position of the whole of it. This is not sound, because if this were the reason, the whole slave would be emancipated due to the existence of part of the condition of each of them, and because we have invalidated this saying by what we mentioned before. The implication of the Qadi's statement is that nothing of him should be emancipated until they both die. If each of them says, "I intended that the slave be free after the last of us in death," this is based upon suspending freedom upon a condition that occurs after death, and we have already mentioned the disagreement regarding that. If we say it is permissible, he is emancipated after the death of the last of them, regarding them both. If we say: It is not valid, the share of the last of them to die is emancipated through tadbir. Regarding its extension to the remainder of him, if his third can bear that, there are two narrations. If each of them says, "If I die before my partner, then my share is for him, and when he dies he is free; and if I die after him, then my share is free," then each of them has bequeathed [his share] to the other. So if one of them dies, the entire slave becomes for the other, and when he dies, he is entirely emancipated over him, and his wala' becomes entirely for him, if we say: It is not valid to suspend emancipation upon a condition after death. And if we say: It is valid, he is emancipated over both of them, and his wala' is between them.