the land of war, and in that the mukatab and the mudabbar are permitted to be sold (6), which renders repeating it here unnecessary.

Section: Should the duration he spent with the disbelievers be counted against him? There are two views: One of them is that it is not counted against him, because the kitaba requires enabling him to conduct transactions and earn throughout this period. If that was not attained by him, it should not be counted against him, just as if his master had imprisoned him. Thus, it is based on what (7) has passed of the duration before the capture, and the duration of the captivity is disregarded, as if it did not exist. The second [view] is that it is counted against him, because it is part of the kitaba period, and it passed without negligence on the part of his master, so it is counted against him, just as if he had become ill. Also, because he is a debtor and a portion of his debt's term has passed while he was in captivity, so it is counted against him, like other creditors. It differs from the case where his master imprisons him, for reasons we will mention, if Allah Almighty wills. Based on this, if a payment installment (najm) falls due upon his rescue, it is permissible to demand it from him (7). If what allows for his incapacitation (ta'jiz) by failing to pay falls due, then his master has the right to declare him incapacitated and return him to slavery. Does he have that right himself or through a judge's ruling? There are two views: One of them is that he has the right; because reaching the wealth at its time became impossible for him, so it resembles the case where he is present but the wealth is absent, and it is impossible to bring it and pay it within a near period. In that case, his master would have the right of rescission, and here the wealth is either non-existent or absent, making its payment impossible. In both cases, rescission is permissible. The second [view] is that he does not have that right except through the judgment of a judge; because with [the mukatab's] absence, one needs to investigate whether he has wealth or not. It is not the same when he is present; for he demands it from him, and if he pays, [well and good], otherwise he has incapacitated himself. If he rescinds the kitaba himself or by the judge's ruling, then the mukatab is freed and claims that he had wealth at the time (9) of rescission that was sufficient for what he owed, and he brings evidence for that, the rescission is voided. It is possible [to hold] that it is not voided until it is proven that he was able to pay it; because if he were unable to pay, his presence would be like his non-existence.

Section: If his master imprisons him for a period, he has done wrong, and it is not counted against him for his duration (10), according to one of the views.