his master's ownership over him, so they are in the same status as if he had purchased them after his own emancipation. If he defaults and is returned to slavery, they become slaves to the master; because they are part of his wealth, so they become the master's upon his default, like his outsider slaves.

A section: Their earnings belong to the mukatab because they are his property. Their maintenance is his responsibility by virtue of ownership, not by virtue of kinship. If the master emancipates them, they do not become free, because he does not own them and therefore does not possess the right to dispose of them. If the mukatab emancipates them without the permission of his master, they do not become free, due to his master's right attached to them. If he emancipates them with his permission, they become free, just as if he had emancipated others among his slaves. If his master emancipates him, he becomes free, and they become slaves to the master, just as if he had defaulted, because his kitaba (contract of manumission) becomes void upon his emancipation, just as it becomes void upon his death. According to the opinion we have chosen, they become free, because he became free before the annulment of the kitaba; therefore, it is mandatory that they become free, just as if he were emancipated by way of remitting the kitaba wealth, or by fulfilling it. What confirms this is that the kitaba is a binding contract through which the mukatab gains ownership of his slaves and his earnings, while the master's right over the ownership of his person remains in a manner that does not cease except through payment or what takes its place. Thus, the master does not have the power to annul it in matters concerning the annulment of the mukatab's right; rather, he only has the power to annul his right over the person of the mukatab, so it takes effect upon his wealth but not upon the wealth of the mukatab. We have previously mentioned the like of this. If the mukatab dies and leaves behind no assets to fulfill the payment, he returns to being a slave. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: They must strive to pay the kitaba in its installments, and the same applies to his umm walad (mother of his child). Abu Hanifa said regarding the child specifically: If he brings the kitaba payment due, it is accepted from him, and he becomes free. Our argument is that he is a slave to the mukatab, so upon his death, he reverts to his master if he has not left behind enough to fulfill the payment, like an outsider. If he leaves behind enough for fulfillment, the matter is based on the two reports regarding the annulment of the kitaba, as previously mentioned.

A section: If some of his relatives of prohibited degree are gifted to him, he may accept it. If a bequest is made to him of such a person, he may accept the bequest; because if he possesses the right to purchase them, despite that involving the expenditure of his wealth, then it is more appropriate that it is permissible without compensation. Once he owns them, their status is the same as if he had purchased them.

A section: It is permissible for a mukatab to purchase his wife, and for a mukataba to purchase her husband; because that is permissible for a non-mukatab, so it is permissible for the mukatab, just like purchasing outsiders. The marriage is annulled by that. Al-Shafi'i said this. Abu Hanifa said: It is not annulled, because the mukatab does not possess full ownership, evidenced by the fact that he is not permitted to have concubinage, nor do his parents or children become free if he purchases them, so he resembles an ordinary slave. Our argument is that the mukatab possesses what he purchases, evidenced by the fact that the right of pre-emption (shuf'a) is established for him against his master and for his master against him, and usury (riba) occurs between him and his master. Concubinage was only prohibited due to the attachment of his master's right to what is in his hand, just as a mortgagor is prohibited from intercourse despite the stability of his ownership, and his relatives of prohibited degree did not become free because of that. Thus, if one of them purchases the other, he has the right to dispose of him, because he is an outsider to him.