is not fixed in the contract, unlike the valid kitaba, and this takes the place of a free-standing condition, in his statement: 'If you pay me a thousand, you are free.' There is disagreement regarding four rulings: The first is the invalidation of the kitaba upon the death of the master. The Qadi and his companions held the view of its invalidation. This is the view of al-Shafiʿi, may Allah have mercy on him; because it is a contract that is permissible for both parties, and it does not lead to binding status, so it is invalidated by death, like agency, and because the governing principle in it is the rule of a free-standing condition, and the condition is invalidated by death, so too is this kitaba. Abu Bakr said: It is not invalidated by death, and he becomes free upon fulfillment to the heir. [This is the view of Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him; because he is a mukatab who becomes free upon fulfillment to the master, so he becomes free upon fulfillment to the heir], as in the valid kitaba, and because the corrupt [kitaba] is like the valid one in the chapter of emancipation through fulfillment, and in that the offspring follows her, so it is the same in this. The second is regarding its invalidation due to the master's insanity or the interdiction placed upon him for incompetence; the disagreement regarding it is like the disagreement regarding its invalidation by his death. The most appropriate view is that it is not invalidated in this case; because a free-standing condition is not invalidated by that, and the governing element in this kitaba is the rule of a free-standing condition, so it is not invalidated by it. Based on this, if he fulfills [the payment] to his master after that, he becomes free. And according to the one who invalidates it, he does not become free. The third is that what is in the possession of the mukatab, what he earns, and what remains in his possession after fulfillment, belongs to him rather than his master. [This is] according to the view of the Qadi and the school of al-Shafiʿi, may Allah have mercy on him, because it is a kitaba in which he becomes free upon fulfillment, so this ruling is established within it, like the valid one. Abu al-Khattab said: That belongs to his master in both instances; because the slave's earnings belong to his master by the rule of the original state, and the contract here is corrupt, so the ruling on the obligation of compensation in his liability is not established, and thus ownership of the object of exchange is not transferred, like all corrupt contracts. Also, because the governing element in it is the rule of a free-standing condition, which does not establish ownership for him over his earnings, so it is the same here, and it differs from the valid kitaba.