The second is that he is unaware of this.

In the first case, where he is aware, there are two possibilities:

First: he is solvent.
Second: he is insolvent.

If he is solvent, there are two possibilities:

First: there is a profit.
Second: there is no profit.

Likewise, if he is insolvent, there are also two possibilities:

First: there is a profit.
Second: there is no profit.

In the second case, where he is unaware, he may likewise be either solvent or insolvent. If he is solvent, there may or may not be a profit. The issue thus comprises exactly eight cases: four where he is aware and four where he is unaware.

Section

If the working partner purchases someone who becomes free upon entering his ownership, while aware of this and solvent, and there is a profit, the person is emancipated, and the working partner must pay the capital provider his capital and his share of the profit, assessed on the day of the ruling. However, if the purchase price exceeds the person’s value on the day of the ruling, he must pay the capital provider his capital and his share of the profit calculated on the basis of that purchase price. By making the purchase while aware that the person would become free upon entering his ownership, he has agreed to pay the capital provider whatever is due to him from that purchase price in respect of his capital and share of the profit. The capital provider is therefore entitled to claim the higher amount from him.

Al-Mughīra said: “The person is emancipated to the extent of the working partner’s share, and the working partner must pay the value of the capital provider’s share as assessed on the day of the ruling.” This differs from Ibn al-Qāsim’s view that he is liable for the higher amount.