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.

A section: If the master marries his daughter to his mukatab with her consent, and then the master dies and she is among his heirs, the marriage is annulled. Al-Shafi'i said this. Abu Hanifa said: The marriage is not annulled, because she does not inherit from him; she only owns her share of the debt that is owed by him, evidenced by the fact that if an heir remits the mukatab's debt, he becomes free, and the wala' (right of patronage) belongs to the deceased, not to the heir. If he defaults and returns to slavery, the marriage is annulled at that time, because she owned her share of him. Our argument is that the mukatab is owned by his master and does not become free upon his death, so he must pass to his heirs like the rest of his property. Furthermore, it is not permissible for her to initiate a marriage with him due to the existence of ownership; therefore, her marriage is annulled by the renewal of that [ownership] over him, like an ordinary slave. As for the wala' belonging to the deceased, it is because the cause originated from him, so the emancipation is attributed to him and the wala' is established for him. Once this is established, there is no difference between whether she inherits all of him or only a share of him, because if she owns a portion of him, the marriage regarding that portion is annulled, so it becomes void regarding the remainder, as he cannot be divided. Likewise, if she purchases her husband, or a portion of him, or inherits a portion of an ordinary slave, her marriage becomes void. If she does not inherit from her father due to one of the impediments of inheritance, her marriage remains intact.