of his third. This is one of the two opinions held by the companions of al-Shafi’i. They have another opinion, which is that nothing of him is emancipated until something is fulfilled from the debt or something arrives from the absent property, at which point the equivalent of half of the slave is emancipated; because the heirs have not obtained anything, and the slave is their partner, so it is not permissible for him to obtain something as long as they do not obtain twice as much. If the absent property is destroyed, and hope for collecting the debt is lost, then his third is emancipated at that time, and they own two-thirds of him; because the slave has become the entire estate. This is incorrect, because the third of the slave is [determined to be] out of the third [of the estate] with certainty, and the doubt is only regarding what is in excess of it. What is out of the third with certainty must be free with certainty, because the tadbir is valid, and there is no disagreement that it takes effect in the third. Suspending this third from emancipation, despite the certainty of the emancipation occurring within it, the existence of its requirement, and the lack of benefit in suspending it, is meaningless. The fact that the heirs did not obtain anything due to a reason specific to them does not necessitate that he should not obtain anything in the absence of that reason. Do you not see that if he acquits his debtor of his debt, and it constitutes the entire estate, then he [the slave] is acquitted of his third even if the heirs do not obtain anything? If the debt were deferred, and he acquitted him of it, he would be freed from his third immediately, and the fulfillment of the two-thirds would be delayed until the term. If the debtor were insolvent, he would be freed from his third immediately, and the rest would be delayed until [the debtor] is in a state of ease. Furthermore, delaying the emancipation of the third has no benefit for the heirs, and it causes the loss of its benefit for the tadbir slave, so it should not be established. Once this is established, then if the slave is completely emancipated upon the arrival of the absent property or the fulfillment of the debt, we clarify that he was free at the time of death, so his earnings belong to him; because he was emancipated by the tadbir and the existence of the condition upon which the master suspended his freedom, which is death, and we only suspended it due to the doubt regarding his exit from the third. Once the doubt is removed, we clarify that it had been achieved before the removal of the doubt. If the property is destroyed, we clarify that his two-thirds were slave property, and only his third was emancipated. If some of the property is destroyed, the amount of the tadbir slave that exceeds the value of the third of the obtained property remains slave property.

Section: If the tadbir slave consists of two slaves, and he has a debt, and they [the slaves] would exit from the third of the estate upon the assumption of its acquisition, we cast lots between them. The one for whom the lot falls will have the amount of a third of both of them emancipated, while the remainder of him and the other slave will be suspended. When something is fulfilled from the debt, the emancipation of the one for whom the lot fell is completed by the amount of his third,