so what is in his hand belongs to his master, like one who is not a mukatab. The correct view is the first one, if Allah the Almighty wills; because he is a mukatab who has been absolved of the kitaba wealth, so he is emancipated thereby, and what is in his hand is his, just as if his master had absolved him. This is confirmed by the fact that his ownership was established over what was in his hand, and nothing has occurred to remove it; rather, the event is something that removes his master's ownership over him, so his [the slave's] ownership remains, just as if he were emancipated through payment.

Section: If the master says to his mukatab: "When you become unable [to pay] after my death, you are free." This is the suspension of freedom upon a condition that occurs after death. We have already mentioned a disagreement regarding this in what has passed. If we say: It is not valid, then there is no discussion. If we say: It is valid, then whenever he becomes unable after death, he becomes free by the condition. If he claims inability before the [scheduled] time of payment arrives, he does not become free; because nothing has become due upon him that he is unable to perform. If he claims this after the time of his payment arrives, and he has with him what he could pay, his statement is not valid; because he is not unable. If he does not have apparent wealth, and the heirs confirm him, he becomes free. If they deny him, then the statement is his along with his oath; because the default is the absence of wealth and his inability, so if he swears, he becomes free. When he becomes free by this condition, what is in his hand is his, if his kitaba contract has not been voided; because the kitaba is not voided by inability; rather, the entitlement to void it is established by it, and freedom is achieved by it at the first moment of its existence, so freedom will have been achieved for him during the state of his kitaba, and thus what is in his hand is his, just as if he were emancipated by absolution from the kitaba wealth. The implication of the statement of some of our companions is that his kitaba contract is nullified, and what is in his hand belongs to the heirs of his master.

Section: If he makes a kitaba contract with a slave of his in his health, then emancipates him during his death-illness, or absolves him of the kitaba wealth, if the lesser of his value or his kitaba wealth comes out of his third, he is emancipated. For example, if he has two hundred besides the mukatab, the value of the mukatab is one hundred, and the kitaba wealth is one hundred and fifty, we consider his value rather than the kitaba wealth, and it comes out of the third. If the kitaba wealth were one hundred and his value one hundred and fifty, we would consider the kitaba wealth, and the emancipation would take effect, and we consider what remains of the kitaba wealth, not what he has already paid of it. We only considered the lesser [amount]; because if his value is less, it is the value of what was lost by emancipation, and the kitaba wealth is what it settled upon, for the slave has the right to drop it by causing his own inability, or he refrains from paying it, and he is not compelled to do so, so it is not counted for him. If the kitaba substitute is less, we consider it; because he becomes free upon its payment, and the master is not entitled to anything else from him, and his ownership over him has weakened, and it has become his substitute. If neither of them comes out of the third, such as if his wealth besides the mukatab is one hundred, then we add the lesser of his value or his kitaba wealth to his wealth, and we calculate accordingly, so two-thirds of him becomes free, and one-third remains with one-third of the kitaba wealth. If he pays it, he becomes free, otherwise, one-third of him remains in slavery. It is possible that when the kitaba wealth is one hundred and fifty, and one-third of him remains for fifty, and he pays it, to say: The wealth of the deceased has increased; because it was calculated for the heirs as one hundred, and they have received fifty for his third, so the wealth of the deceased has increased, and it should increase by the amount that he is emancipated from; because this wealth is obtained by them through the contract of the master, and inheritance from him. It is necessary that what is considered from the kitaba wealth be three-fourths of it; because one-fourth must be given to the mukatab, so it is not calculated as part of the deceased's wealth. Accordingly, if three-fourths of the mukatab's wealth is one hundred and fifty, and the value of the slave is one hundred, and the deceased has another hundred, two-thirds of the slave becomes free, and the heirs receive fifty from the slave's kitaba, in return for one-third of the slave calculated against them as one-third of the hundred. They have gained an increase of one-third of fifty, so he is emancipated from the slave by an amount of one-third of that, which is one-ninth of the fifty, and that is half of its ninth, so the emancipation becomes established in one-third of him, and half of a ninth of him, and the heirs receive the hundred and eight-ninths of the fifty, which is twice what he was emancipated from. If it is said: Why have you emancipated part of him while some of the kitaba wealth remains upon him, and you have said: The mukatab is not emancipated until he pays all of the kitaba wealth? We say: