What is the ruling if a sick person buys two cousins for a thousand units, possessing nothing else, frees one, then bequeaths his brother (the freed cousin) to the other cousin, and dies leaving both cousins and his master (Mawla)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Bequests
Primary text
According to the deduction from the Qadi's opinion, two-thirds of the freed cousin is manumitted, unless the master ratifies the manumission of the entirety. Then the heir inherits two-thirds of the remainder of the estate, and eight-ninths of that remainder are used for manumission, leaving one-ninth and one-third of the second cousin for the master. Another possibility is that the entirety is freed, and he inherits his brother, so both are freed entirely because the manumission makes him an heir to two-thirds of the estate, validating his ratification of the remainder, completing his freedom, and then completing his inheritance.
Supporting text
The deduction from Abu Al-Khattab's opinion is that two-thirds are manumitted, and he does not inherit, as inheritance would make the manumission a bequest to himself, voiding the manumission, which in turn voids the inheritance, leading to a contradiction. This is a position of Al-Shafi'i, and one-third and the other cousin remain for the master. Abu Hanifa states two-thirds of the first cousin are manumitted, and the buyer owes the value of one-third, without inheriting. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad state the entirety is manumitted, and his brother (the bestowed one) is freed through the gift, and they become more entitled to the inheritance than the master. If there is other wealth, they inherit it, and the first freed cousin owes his brother half his own value and half the value of his brother because the first manumission was a bequest to himself, and there is no bequest to an heir. Since he became an heir with his brother, he inherited half the value of his own neck and half his brother's value, and his brother inherited the remainder. The brother gifted to him was a gift from the sick person, so he was freed through consanguinity, not by the sick person's act, meaning his manumission was not a bequest but consumed by the manumission that occurred. Therefore, the first owes half his value and half his brother's value to his brother.