thereby harming the co-owner, since his share would leave his ownership without compensation. (1)

Moreover, one who is insolvent is not required to emancipate while insolvent. If an insolvent person owed an expiation, we would not require it of him; so how could we require the emancipation to extend to the remainder of the slave?

Thus, emancipation cannot extend in the case of this poor man, because he is poor, and Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity. The slave woman therefore remains partially emancipated.

If someone were to ask: Why does the emancipation not extend, with its value remaining as a debt owed by him?

We would reply: This would harm him, because his liability would remain encumbered; and it would also harm the owner of the other half, because compensation for his share would be deferred until an unspecified time.

However, there is another view on the matter: the slave is required to earn his freedom. (2) That is, he is told: “Work to free yourself.” If the slave is unable to work, then it is conceivable that part of him remains emancipated. Such a woman is therefore given the ruling of a slave.

If someone were to ask: Why do you not give her the ruling of a free woman, giving precedence to the side of prohibition and exercising caution with regard to the obligation?

The answer is that the condition has not been fulfilled. This is not a case in which an impediment exists; rather, it is one in which a condition is absent. The condition is complete freedom, and since complete freedom is not present here, the condition has not been fulfilled. Conditions must be fully met,