Settlement (muqassah) is not permissible for them without their mutual consent under any circumstances, whether the commodity is of the same type as his right or a different type. If they agree to it, it is also not permissible, because it is the sale of a debt for a debt. If one of them receives his right from the other and then gives it to the other as compensation for his property that is in his liability, it is permissible, provided that the amount established in the liability did not originate from a salam contract. If it did originate from a salam contract, it is not permissible to take compensation for it before receiving it. In sum, the ruling of the mukatab regarding his master in this regard is the same as the ruling for strangers, except according to the view of Ibn Abi Musa which we mentioned. And Allah knows best.

1988 - Issue: He said: "A man may not have intercourse with his mukatabah (female slave in a contract of manumission) unless he stipulates it."

The discussion on this issue is in two sections:

The first: Regarding having intercourse with her without a stipulation, which is forbidden according to the view of the majority of scholars, among them: Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Layth, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of rational opinion (ashab al-ra'y). It was said: He may have intercourse with her at a time when intercourse does not distract her from working towards what she is tasked with, because she is his slave, and she falls under the generality of His saying, the Most High: {or those whom your right hands possess}. Our evidence is that the kitabah (contract of manumission) is a contract that removed the right to her labor and the right to the compensation for the benefit of her private parts in the event she was had intercourse with by mistake, so it removed the permissibility of having intercourse with her, just like a sale. The verse is specific to the married woman, so we draw an analogy to the subject of dispute based upon it. Furthermore, the ownership here is weak, because he has fully ceased to have rights over her benefits; that is why if she were had intercourse with by mistake, the dower would be hers. She differs from the umm walad (slave who has borne her master a child), for his ownership of her remains, and it only ceases upon his death; thus, she is similar to the mudabbarah (slave promised freedom upon the master's death) and the one bequeathed. The prohibition of sale occurred only because she acquired the right to freedom upon his death as a binding entitlement that cannot be removed.

The second section: If he stipulates having intercourse with her, then he may do so. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib held this view. All others whom we mentioned said: He may not have intercourse with her, because he does not possess it with the contract being unrestricted, so he does not possess it by way of stipulation, just as if he had married her off or freed her.