and pardoning in exchange for wealth that attaches to the person of the offender. If the offense is other than against life, such as severing his hand or foot, the mukatab has the right to demand retaliation, and his master may not prevent him, just as a sick person may receive [payments] without his heirs objecting to him, and a bankrupt person may receive [payments] without his creditors objecting to him. If he pardons in exchange for wealth, it becomes established for him. If he pardons absolutely, or for something other than wealth, this is based on the two accounts regarding the legal requirement for intentional offenses. If we say: its requirement is retaliation specifically, it is valid, no wealth is established for him, and the master has no right to demand [that he stipulate] wealth; because that is earning, and the master does not possess the authority to force him to earn. If we say: the requirement is one of two things, the blood money for the wound is established for him; because once retaliation is dropped, the wealth becomes specified. It is not valid for him to pardon the wealth, because he does not possess the authority to donate it (50) without the permission of his master. If he settles for a portion of the indemnity, his ruling is the same as that of the [pardoned party] (51) for something other than wealth.

Section: If the mukatab dies while having debts and indemnities for offenses, and he did not possess what he was to pay for his kitaba, his kitaba is voided (52), and the indemnity for offenses is dropped; because they are attached to his person and he has perished. His debt is satisfied from what was in his possession; if it is not sufficient, the remainder is dropped. Ahmad said: It is not upon his master to pay his debt, as he was striving for himself. If he did possess what he was to pay for his kitaba, this is based on the two accounts regarding the emancipation of the mukatab upon possessing what he is to pay. We have already mentioned two accounts regarding it, the more apparent of which is that he does not become free by that, so the kitaba is also voided, and one begins with the payment of debt, according to what we mentioned in the first state. This is the opinion of Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, Shurayh, 'Ata', 'Amr ibn Dinar, Abu al-Zinad, Yahya al-Ansari, Rabi'ah, al-Awza'i, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i. The second account is that if he possesses what he is to pay, he has become free. According to this, the master claims his share alongside the creditors with what has become due of his installments. Similar (53) to this was narrated from Shurayh, al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, al-Hakam, Hammad, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri, and al-Hasan ibn Salih; because it is a debt of his that is due, so he claims it like other debts. It follows from the opinion of one who said that debt becomes due upon death that he should claim the entire kitaba wealth; because it has become due. The first school of thought is what the group narrated from Ahmad. Sa'id has narrated in his "Sunan" that Hushaym said, Mansur and Sa'id informed us, from Qatada, who said: I mentioned to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib the opinion of Shurayh regarding the mukatab if he dies and has a debt, and a remainder of his kitaba, and I said: Shurayh decreed that his master claims alongside the creditors. Sa'id said: Shurayh erred; Zayd decreed [payment of] the debt before the kitaba (54).

1996 - Issue: He said: (If he makes a kitaba contract with him, then makes him a mudabbar, then when he pays, he becomes free. If the master dies before payment, he becomes free through the tadbir, if the third [of the estate] covers what remains of his kitaba, otherwise he becomes free from it to the extent of the third, and an amount equal to what he was emancipated from is dropped from the kitaba, and he remains under the kitaba for what remains.)

The sum of this is that the tadbir of a mukatab is valid. We know of no disagreement regarding this; because it is the suspension of emancipation upon a condition, and he possesses the authority to emancipate him. If it is a bequest, it is a bequest for his emancipation, and he possesses it. Given this, if he pays, he becomes free through payment; because it is a cause for emancipation, and the tadbir is nullified as it is no longer needed, and what is in his hand is his. If he is unable [to pay] and the kitaba is voided, his kitaba is nullified, and he becomes a mudabbar who is not a mukatab. If the master dies, he becomes free if it comes out of the third, and what is in his hand belongs to his master. If it does not come out of the third, he becomes free from it to the extent of the third. If the master dies before his payment and his inability, he becomes free through tadbir if the third covers it, and if it does not come out of the third, he becomes free from it to the extent of the third, and an amount equal to what he was emancipated from is dropped from the kitaba; because the kitaba wealth is a substitute for him, so if half of him becomes free, it is necessary that half the kitaba be dropped; because the kitaba does not remain except for half of him, so there does not remain of its wealth upon him except to that extent, and he remains under the kitaba for what remains, and what is in his hand is his. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him. Our companions said: If he becomes free through tadbir, the kitaba is nullified, and what is in his hand belongs to his master, just as if the kitaba were nullified due to his inability; because he is a slave who became free through tadbir,