It is said: If one hangs the emancipation of his slave on an action at a certain time, and he performs it at another time, he is not emancipated. Likewise, if he says: "If you pay me a thousand [dirhams] in Ramadan," and he pays it in Sha'ban, he is not emancipated. We say: That is a pure condition, and he is not emancipated except upon its realization; whereas the Kitaba (contract of manumission) is a commutative contract in which one is absolved by the performance (7) of the compensation, so they differ. Similarly, if he absolves him of the compensation in the Kitaba (8), he is emancipated; but if he absolves him of the wealth in the case of a pure condition, he is not emancipated. The most correct view, if Allah the Almighty wills, is what the Qadi said, namely that when there is harm in taking possession, it is not mandatory for him to accept it, and he is not emancipated by offering it, due to the harm he mentioned which the contract did not stipulate. The report of 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, provides no evidence for the obligation to take possession of that which causes harm. Moreover, our companions said: If he meets him in another land and pays him the installments of the Kitaba, or some of them, and he refrains from accepting them due to harm in doing so, such as fear or the cost of transport, it is not mandatory for him to accept it because of the harm involved. If there is no harm in it, he is obligated to accept it. Thus it is here as well. The statement of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is interpreted as applying to cases where there is no harm in taking possession, as are the statements of al-Khiraqi and Abu Bakr.

Section: If the mukatab (contracted slave) brings the wealth of the Kitaba, or part of it, to pay it, and the master says: "This is unlawful (haram) or usurped (ghasb), I will not accept it from you," the slave is asked about that. If he admits it, it is not mandatory for the master to accept it, because he is not obligated to take what is unlawful, nor is it permitted for him. If he denies it and the master has evidence (bayyina) for his claim, he is not mandatory to accept it, and his evidence shall be heard because he has a right not to have his debt satisfied from unlawful wealth, nor (9) is he secure (10) from the owner returning to him for it. If he has no evidence, the statement is that of the slave along with his oath. If he refuses the oath, it is also not mandatory for the master to accept it. If he makes him swear, it is said to the master: Either take possession of it or absolve him so that he may be emancipated. If he takes possession of it, and it is the remainder of his Kitaba, he is emancipated. Then, it is considered: if he claimed that it is absolutely unlawful, he shall not be prevented from it, because he does not admit it for anyone else, its prohibition being strictly between him and Allah the Almighty. If he claimed that he usurped it from so-and-so, he must return it to him (12), because his statement, even if it is not accepted in regard to the mukatab, is accepted in regard to