payment is as if it were non-existent, because he has not fulfilled his obligation. It is said to him: "If you pay now, [it is well], otherwise your kitaba will be annulled." If he died after payment, he died a slave. If it turns out to be defective, such as if he contracted with him for [described goods] and he took possession of them, then found a defect in them after taking possession, you look: if he was pleased with that and kept them, the emancipation is established. If it is said: "How can the emancipation be established when he did not give him everything the contract stipulated? For he did not take possession of what corresponds to the defect, so it is like if he contracted with him for ten [dirhams] and he gave him nine." We say: His keeping of the defective goods while being pleased with them is a sign of his satisfaction with relinquishing his right, so it is treated as his waiving the remainder of his kitaba. If he chooses to keep them and takes the compensation for the defect, or returns them, he may do so. Abu Bakr said: The analogy of Ahmad's position, may Allah have mercy on him, is that the emancipation does not become void, he does not have the right of return, and he is entitled to the compensation; because emancipation is an act of destruction and consumption, so once he has ruled that it occurred, it does not become void, like the khul' (divorce initiated by the wife) contract, and because the objective of it is not the wealth, so it resembles khul'. The Qadi said: It is legally possible that he has the right of return, and it is ruled that the emancipation that took place is lifted; because emancipation is only established by the establishment of payment, and the payment has been lifted, so the emancipation is lifted. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because kitaba is a contract of exchange that is subject to annulment by mutual consent, so it must be subject to annulment due to the presence of a defect, like a sale. If he chooses to keep them and take the compensation, he may do so, and it becomes clear that the emancipation did not occur, and because we have established that his liability for the kitaba wealth has not been discharged, and he is not emancipated before that, and the assumption that emancipation occurred does not make it so if the matter proves to be otherwise, as if the compensation proved to be rightfully claimed by another. If the specific item is destroyed while with the master, or a defect occurs in it while in his possession, the compensation for the defect is established, and the ruling regarding the lifting of the emancipation is as we mentioned previously. If the master said to his slave: "If you give me a slave, you are free," and he gave him a slave, then it turned out to be free, or rightfully claimed by another, he does not become free by that; because its meaning is: "If you give him to me as my property." He did not give it to him as property, nor did he make him the owner of it.