What is the ruling when a sick person dies leaving two sons, and two independent witnesses testify to the manumission of one slave (Salim) during his terminal illness, while two other unrelated witnesses testify to the manumission of another slave (Ghanim), each manumission accounting for one-third of the estate, and the sons accept the testimony regarding Salim but deny the manumission of Ghanim?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
When the two sons accept the testimony regarding the manumission of one slave (Salim) covering one-third of the estate, and deny the manumission of the other slave (Ghanim) also covering one-third, the ruling is as if both manumissions were attested by unrelated, just witnesses. The slave regarding whom the sons testified (Salim) is fully manumitted because the sons confirmed his manumission and acknowledged his right to freedom. This is the opinion of Al-Qadi. Regarding the slave testified to by the unrelated witnesses (Ghanim), his manumission is confirmed if the time of his manumission predates the death, or if lots are drawn for him, and he is not freed if his manumission was subsequent to death or if the lot falls to another claimant.
Supporting text
An alternative opinion states that two-thirds of the second slave (Ghanim) is manumitted, considering him like property usurped from the estate or lost upon death, thus freeing two-thirds of what remains after the first confirmed manumission. However, the first view is preferred because the criterion is the removal from the estate at the time of death; since the manumission of Salim was established post-mortem by the sons' testimony, it is treated as if Salim died after his master, not hindering the freeing of Ghanim, whose manumission may have occurred before death.