His two companions said: A sixth of him is manumitted, and he must work for the remainder of his five-sixths. It is said that, by analogy to the statement of al-Shafi'i, the sale is rescinded unless the son authorizes his manumission. It is also said: A third of him is manumitted, and the sale is rescinded for the other two-thirds. If he left two thousand besides him, he is manumitted and inherits a sixth of them. This is the view of Malik and Abu Hanifa. According to the view of his two companions, half of him is manumitted, and he must work for the value of half of him.

Section: If a person is gifted his father, or a bequest is made to him for his father, it is recommended for him to accept it, but it is not obligatory. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that it is obligatory for him to accept it because it contains the manumission of his father without the commitment of wealth. Our view is that it is the acquisition of ownership of the father, so it is not binding on him, just as if it were offered to him for compensation, or as if his son or another of his relatives were offered to him. Furthermore, he incurs harm by being obligated to them, and he is obligated to provide for their maintenance and clothing.

Section: If a person makes a bequest to his heir and to a stranger of his third, and the remaining heirs authorize the bequest to the heir, the third is divided between them. If he makes a bequest to each of them of a specific item whose value is a third, and the remaining heirs authorize the bequest to the heir, the bequest to both is valid. If they reject it, the bequest to the heir is void in both cases, and the stranger receives a sixth in the first case, and the specific item bequeathed to him in the second. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y), and others. If the two bequests are of two-thirds of his wealth, and the heirs authorize them for both, they are both valid. If they specify the heir's portion for rejection alone, then the stranger receives the entire third; this is because they specified the heir for invalidation, so the entire third belongs to the stranger, and the heir's bequest falls, becoming as if he had not made a bequest to him at all. If they invalidate the amount exceeding the third without specifying the portion of either one, then the remaining third is between the two legatees, with each one receiving a sixth.