Explanation of the author's statement: "And the slave between partners owes a sa'."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said, "And the slave between partners owes a sa'", is it according to their number of heads or according to their ownership? "The slave between partners owes a sa'", is it according to ownership or according to the number of heads? Well, the difference becomes apparent if a slave belongs to three people: one owns half of him, another owns a third, and the third owns a sixth. If we say it is based on the number of heads, then each one owes a third of a sa' because there are three of them. If we say it is based on ownership, then the first one, the owner of the half, owes half a sa', the second owes a third of a sa', and the third owes a sixth of a sa'.
Therefore, the slave between partners owes a sa' according to their ownership. This is derived from the author's statement, "between partners". As long as the issue is based on partnership, they are liable according to their ownership in this shared property. Well, is this statement by the author correct or incorrect? Even according to the stronger position, yes, even according to the stronger position. This is because the slave's fitrah (sacrifice) is for his master. So, the slave between partners owes a sa'. Some scholars held the view that each one of them owes a sa', that each one of them owes a sa'. They said this because the fitrah is obligatory and cannot be divided; every person is an owner. However, this view is weak because the correct view is that the fitrah for another person is a branch, meaning that its root is obligatory for the specific person, and whoever bears it on his behalf is a branch. If we have three branches, like in the example we mentioned of three masters, and we have one root, how can we make the root three? It is not possible. So we consider the root, which is one, and we say they owe a sa' according to their ownership. Just as if the situation were reversed, if there were three slaves belonging to one person, what is obligatory for him? Three sa's. Yes, yes, yes? ... Well.
Therefore, the slave between partners owes a sa' according to their ownership. This is derived from the author's statement, "between partners". As long as the issue is based on partnership, they are liable according to their ownership in this shared property. Well, is this statement by the author correct or incorrect? Even according to the stronger position, yes, even according to the stronger position. This is because the slave's fitrah (sacrifice) is for his master. So, the slave between partners owes a sa'. Some scholars held the view that each one of them owes a sa', that each one of them owes a sa'. They said this because the fitrah is obligatory and cannot be divided; every person is an owner. However, this view is weak because the correct view is that the fitrah for another person is a branch, meaning that its root is obligatory for the specific person, and whoever bears it on his behalf is a branch. If we have three branches, like in the example we mentioned of three masters, and we have one root, how can we make the root three? It is not possible. So we consider the root, which is one, and we say they owe a sa' according to their ownership. Just as if the situation were reversed, if there were three slaves belonging to one person, what is obligatory for him? Three sa's. Yes, yes, yes? ... Well.