it is valid. Thus, it is also valid if he emancipates him upon the performance of a portion of it, and the remainder remains a debt upon him after his emancipation, as if he had sold him his own self for it. (19)

2011 - Issue: He said: "If the enemy captures a mukatab, and a man buys him and then releases him to his master, if he [the master] wishes to take him, he takes him for what he bought him for, and he remains on his kitaba. If he does not wish to take him, he remains the property of his purchaser, kept upon what remains of his kitaba; he is emancipated upon performance, and his wala' belongs to the one to whom he performs [the payment]."

The summary of this is that if the disbelievers capture a mukatab, and then the Muslims rescue him, the kitaba remains as it is. If he is taken as spoils of war and his status is known, or if his master reaches him before he is divided, he takes him without anything, and he remains on his kitaba, like one who was not captured. If he does not reach him until he is divided and he ends up in the share of some of the warriors, or a man buys him from the spoils before they are divided, or from the polytheists, and releases him to his master, then his master is more entitled to him for the price for which he bought him. Regarding when he is spoils of war, there is another narration stating that if he is divided, his master has no right to him at all. The same is derived for the purchased [mukatab] (2). In any case, if his master takes him, he remains upon what is left of his kitaba; and if he leaves him, he remains in the hands of his purchaser, kept upon what remains of his kitaba, and he is emancipated by performance in both cases, and his wala' belongs to the one to whom he performs the payment, as if he had purchased him from his master. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i [may Allah be pleased with them both] said: Ownership by the disbelievers is not established over him, and he is returned to his master in every case. Abu Hanifa agreed with al-Shafi'i (4) regarding the mukatab and the mudabbar in particular, because in their view, it is not permissible to sell them, nor is the transfer of ownership valid regarding them, so they resemble the umm al-walad. The discussion has already preceded regarding the evidence that what its owner reaches while it is divided, its owner is not entitled to take without compensation, and likewise what a Muslim buys from...