nor may he reclaim what he accepted in settlement. His only avenue of recovery is whatever may accrue to him through inheritance, or the share he still owns in the slave’s person.

Mālik states in the Muwattaʾ that if a partner makes an early settlement without the other’s permission and the slave then defaults, the remaining partner is given a choice: should he wish, he may take from the first partner one-half of the surplus he received; or, if he prefers, he may keep full possession of the slave. Malik’s followers, however, transmit numerous, divergent reports on this question.

If the early settlement was made with the partner’s permission, and the partner who did not settle has already collected from the slave an amount equal to—or greater than—what his colleague received, then, should the slave default, ownership is divided equally between them. If the non-settling partner has collected less, and the slave defaults, the partner who made the settlement may, if he wishes, refund one-half of what he took so that both of them stand equally with respect to the slave’s person; that is permissible. If he refuses, the entire slave belongs to the partner who retained his title. If the mukātab dies, the partner who did not settle first claims the remainder of what is due to him, and whatever is left is shared between him and the partner who had settled.

It is permissible for a man to place several of his slaves under a single manumission contract, making each of them liable for the others, whether they are relatives or strangers; none of them attains freedom apart from the rest. If one of them becomes unable to pay his portion, the others are required to discharge it for him. Should he be unrelated to them, they may later seek reimbursement for what they paid; if he is a relative, the ruling depends: when he is of a class that would not be freed merely by their ownership of him, he is treated like a stranger, but if he is someone who would automatically be freed by their ownership, they may not reclaim from him anything they advanced.

If one of the jointly contracted slaves dies, no part of the outstanding contract price is cancelled for the survivors.

There is no objection to the master freeing one of them who is elderly and unable to earn, or a child incapable of working toward the contract. If the slave is capable of payment, his emancipation is not valid without the consent of the others; some have even said it is invalid even with their consent. According to one of the two transmitted views, if the master frees him with their permission, the amount corresponding to that slave’s share of the contract is cancelled for the remainder.

In setting the contract price, their combined market value is not the criterion; instead, the amount is apportioned among them according to each one’s earning capacity.