What is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad regarding the insolvent manumitting his share?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Manumission
Primary text
Abu Yusuf and Muhammad stated that the entire slave is manumitted, and the value of the partner's share becomes a debt upon the manumitting party's conscience because manumission is indivisible; thus, when it occurs in part, it extends to the whole, similar to divorce. The manumitting party is liable for the value because he is the one who destroyed the partner's share through his act of manumission, making him liable for its value as if he had destroyed it through killing.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa argued that the manumission does not extend. Instead, it entitles the partner to demand that the slave work to earn the value of the remaining share. The partner then chooses between manumitting his own share (making the loyalty shared) or having the slave work to earn the value of his share (loyalty shared upon payment). The argument against this is based on the Hadith of Ibn Umar, considered sound by all scholars of Hadith, and because working for manumission (istisca') is manumission for a price, and one cannot be forced into it like 'Kitabah' (manumission by installment). Furthermore, 'istisca'' harms the partner and the slave: the partner's ownership is lost based on uncertain future earnings, and the slave is forced into labor he did not choose, violating the principle of 'no harm nor reciprocating harm.'