Section

If the working partner purchases someone who becomes free upon entering his ownership, while aware of this and solvent, and there is no profit, the person is emancipated, and the working partner must pay the capital provider whichever is greater: his value on the day of the ruling or the price paid for him. By purchasing him while aware that he would become free upon entering his ownership, he has agreed to pay the capital provider the purchase price.

Al-Mughīra said: “No part of him is emancipated if there is no surplus; rather, he is sold and the proceeds are paid to the capital provider.” This accords by analogy with the view of someone other than Ibn al-Qāsim, cited in the second chapter: if the working partner purchases a slave with the partnership funds and emancipates him when there is no surplus, the emancipation does not take effect. There is no difference between knowingly purchasing with the partnership funds someone who becomes free upon entering his ownership and purchasing a slave with those funds and then emancipating him: in both cases, he has transgressed against the capital provider’s property. The rationale for this view is that his transgression against another person’s property does not bind him to an expenditure from his own property that he has not undertaken.

Section

If the working partner purchases his own father, or someone else who becomes free upon entering his ownership, while aware of this and insolvent, and there is a profit, it is stated in the book that a portion of the person is sold sufficient to cover the capital and the capital provider’s profit—meaning, as assessed on the day of the ruling. The proceeds are paid to the capital provider, and the remainder is emancipated, provided that the purchase price was equal to or less than his value on the day of the ruling. If, however, the purchase price exceeded his value on the day of the ruling, the capital provider may claim whatever is due to him from that excess as a personal debt owed by the working partner.

For example, suppose he purchases him for two hundred, of which one hundred represents the capital, and his value on the day of the ruling is one hundred and fifty. A portion is sold to cover the capital provider’s capital and share of the profit as assessed on the day of the ruling, amounting to one hundred and twenty-five, and the remainder is emancipated. The capital provider may then claim twenty-five as a personal debt owed by the working partner. This is because his entitlement out of the purchase price of two hundred is one hundred and fifty: a portion has been sold on his behalf for one hundred and twenty-five, leaving twenty-five that he may claim from the working partner.

If the capital provider wishes instead to take a share in the person corresponding to his capital and share of the profit on the day of the ruling, calculated according to the value of the person as a whole, he is entitled to do so. This preserves more of the working partner’s share, which is to be emancipated. For if a portion is sold to cover the capital provider’s capital and profit, its sale price will be lower because of the disadvantage of joint ownership. And if he wishes