master's disposal, and this does not occur with istilad, so it must remain for the sake of its utility. Second, kitabah is stronger than tadbir due to its binding nature, and the fact that it is not invalidated by revocation, nor by the sale of the mukatab or gifting him. Third, tadbir is a gratuitous act, while kitabah is a binding commutative contract. Once this is established, there converge for her two causes, each of which necessitates freedom, so whichever is completed before the other, freedom is established by it, just as if it were alone, because the conjunction of one with the other while it does not contradict it does not prevent the establishment of its ruling. If she pays, she is emancipated by the kitabah, and what remains of her earnings belongs to her, because the one emancipated by kitabah has the right to what remains of her installments. If she declares inability and is returned to slavery, the ruling of the kitabah is invalidated, and the ruling of istilad remains for her in isolation, just as if she were not a mukatabah; he may have intercourse with her, marry her off, or lease her, and she is emancipated upon his death, and what is in her possession goes to the heirs of her master. If her master dies before her declaration of inability, she is emancipated because she is an umm al-walad, and the kitabah is waived because the freedom has been achieved, so the compensation offered for obtaining it is waived, as if her master had initiated her emancipation, and what is in her possession goes to the heirs of her master. This is according to the view of al-Khiraqi and Abu al-Khattab, because she was emancipated by the ruling of istilad, and the ruling of kitabah was invalidated, so she resembles someone who is not a mukatabah. Al-Qadi said in al-Mujarrad and Ibn Aqil in his book: "What remains in her possession belongs to her." This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because when emancipation occurs during the kitabah, it does not invalidate its ruling, like the waiver of the kitabah installments. Also, because her ownership was already established over what was in her possession, and nothing occurred except what removed her master's right over her, so it necessitates the removal of his right over what is in her possession, and the confirmation of her ownership and its exclusivity to her, just as it necessitated that in herself. This is the more correct view. And Allah knows best.

Section: If her master emancipates her, she becomes free, her kitabah is dropped, and what is in her possession belongs to her, according to the view of al-Qadi and those who agreed with him. As for the view of al-Khiraqi and those who agreed with him, his analogy is that it belongs to her master, just as if she were emancipated by istilad. It is possible that it belongs to her according to their view as well, because the master emancipated her with his consent, so it is a consent on his part to grant her her property, unlike emancipation by istilad, which occurred without the consent and choice of the heirs, and because if the property of the mukatab were to become the master's upon his emancipation, the master would be able to