it would not be accepted. If the slave’s acknowledgment is not accepted when alone, how could it be accepted with (17) [it contradicting the acknowledgment of] (18) the master? If the slave’s acknowledgment were accepted, the master’s acknowledgment would not be accepted, such as in the case of a hadd punishment or intentional injury. As for the mukatab (an indentured slave), his ruling is the same as that of a free person regarding the validity of his acknowledgment. If he acknowledges an accidental injury, his acknowledgment is valid, and if he is unable to pay, he is sold for it unless his master pays the ransom for him. Abu Hanifah said: He is kept working under the contract of manumission (kitabah), and if he is unable to fulfill it, his acknowledgment of it becomes void, regardless of whether a judicial decree was issued for it or not. From Ash-Shafi'i, there is a view like ours. Another view from him is that it is suspended; if he fulfills it, it becomes binding upon him, and if he is unable, it becomes void. Our view is that it is an acknowledgment that became binding upon him (19) during his kitabah, so it does not become void due to his inability to pay, just like an acknowledgment of debt. According to Ash-Shafi'i, the mukatab is in possession of himself, so his acknowledgment of injury is valid, like a free person.

Section: Acknowledgment is valid for everyone to whom a right is established. If someone acknowledges to a slave (20) a marriage, qisas, or a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) for slander, the acknowledgment for him is valid, whether the master confirms it or denies it; because the right belongs to him, not to his master. He has the right to demand it and to pardon it, and his master has no right to demand (21) it or pardon it. If the slave denies it, it is not accepted. If it is acknowledged for him in terms of wealth, it is valid, and it belongs to his master; because the slave’s possession is like his master’s possession. The companions of Ash-Shafi'i said: If we say that he owns property, the acknowledgment for him is valid. If we say he does not own property, the acknowledgment is for his master; it becomes binding upon his confirmation and void upon his rejection. If he acknowledges for an animal or a house, his acknowledgment for them is not valid and is void; because they do not own property at all, and they have no possession. If he says, "I owe something due to this animal," it is not an acknowledgment for anyone, because he did not specify who it belongs to, and it is a condition for the validity of an acknowledgment to mention the one for whom it is acknowledged. If he says, "For its owner, or for Zayd, I owe a thousand because of it," the acknowledgment is valid. If he says, "Because of the fetus of this animal," it is not valid, as it is not possible to impose an obligation because of a fetus.

Section: If he acknowledges wealth for the fetus of a woman and attributes it to an inheritance or a bequest, it is valid, and it is...