It is connected by a taking of possession that makes it binding. There is no difference whether both convert to Islam or only one of them converts, in what we have mentioned, because the ruling of Islam takes precedence. Abu Hanifa said: If he enters into a kitaba with him for wine, then they both convert to Islam, the contract does not become corrupt, and he pays the value of the wine, because the kitaba is like marriage. Even if he gave her wine as a dowry, then they converted to Islam, the wine [as a dowry] becomes void, but the marriage does not become void. Our argument is that this is a contract which, if a Muslim had entered into it, would be corrupt. Thus, if they convert to Islam before taking possession, or one of them does, its corruption is ruled upon, like a corrupt sale. It differs from marriage [in that] if a Muslim had entered into a marriage [involving] wine, it would be valid. If the slave of a dhimmi converts to Islam, the kitaba does not [become rescinded], because it occurred validly, and he is not forced to remove his ownership, because through the kitaba, he is excluded from the disbeliever's disposal over him. If he becomes unable to pay, he is forced to remove his ownership of him at that time.

[If he purchases a Muslim, then enters into a kitaba with him, the kitaba is not valid, because the purchase is void, and no ownership is established for him through it. If his slave converts to Islam and he enters into a kitaba with him after his conversion, his kitaba is not valid, because he is obligated to remove his ownership of him, and the kitaba does not remove ownership; for the mukatab (slave in a kitaba contract) remains a slave as long as a single dirham remains against him. The Qadi said: He has the right to enter into a kitaba with him, because through it, he is excluded from his master's disposal over him. If he becomes unable to pay, he returns to being a full slave, and he is forced to remove his ownership of him at that time.]

Section: If a harbi (a non-Muslim from the land of war) enters into a kitaba with his slave, the kitaba is valid, whether he is in the land of war or the land of Islam. This is also the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It is not valid, because his ownership is deficient. It is narrated from Malik that he does not possess [the right to do so], based on the evidence that [a Muslim possesses] ownership over him. Our argument is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "And He caused you to inherit their land, their homes, and their wealth." This attribution to them requires the validity of their ownership, which necessitates the validity of their disposals.