We have only emancipated part of him here through the emancipation of his master, not through the kitaba. Since the emancipation was during his terminal illness, it was effective within one-third of his wealth, and the remainder was reserved for the right of the heirs. The situation in which he is not emancipated except by the payment of the entire kitaba wealth applies when his emancipation is by means of that [payment], for when something remains upon him, the full satisfaction has not been achieved, and it relates to compensation, so freedom is not established in the substitute.

Section: If his master bequeaths his emancipation, or absolves him from the kitaba, and the lesser of his value or his kitaba wealth comes out of his one-third, the ruling concerning him is the same as the ruling in the case where he emancipated him during his terminal illness, or absolved him, except that here it requires the execution of emancipation because he bequeathed it. If the lesser of the two does not come out of his one-third, he is emancipated to the extent of one-third, and the kitaba is dropped by the amount that is emancipated, and the remainder of him remains upon the remainder of the kitaba; so if he pays it, all of him is emancipated, and if he fails to do so, one-third of him is emancipated, and the remainder stays in slavery. The analogy of the madhhab is that the emancipation of one-third of him is finalized immediately, like our statement regarding one who creates a tadbir (post-mortem emancipation) for a slave while he has absent wealth, or a debt owed by a solvent or insolvent person: that one-third of him is emancipated immediately, even if nothing is obtained for the heirs immediately. And because the right of the heirs is guaranteed to be attained, for if he pays [the kitaba], then he is emancipated; otherwise, the remainder returns to being property. The Qadi mentioned another view regarding it: that no part of him is finalized in emancipation if the deceased has no other wealth; so that the bequest for what is emancipated from him is not finalized while the right of the heir is delayed. Likewise, if he had absent wealth or present debt, his bequest from the present [wealth] would not be finalized. The first [view] is more correct due to what we have mentioned. As for the present and the absent wealth, if he has been bequeathed from the present wealth, he takes one-third of it immediately, and the remainder is held in abeyance pending the arrival of the absent wealth; thus the beneficiary has obtained one-third of the present wealth, and the heirs have obtained nothing immediately, so it is like our case, and his entire bequest has not been completed because the absent wealth is not secure in its acquisition, for it may perish, unlike the case we are in. As for the increase resulting from the increase in kitaba wealth, it is suspended upon the payment of the kitaba wealth.

1997 - Issue; He said: (And when the mukatab claims the fulfillment of his kitaba, and brings a witness, he takes an oath along with his witness, and he becomes free)

This is the position of Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him; because the dispute between them is regarding the payment of wealth, and in wealth, the witness and oath are accepted. If it is said: The intent of this testimony is emancipation, which is [among the things that] cannot be established by a witness and an oath. We say: Rather, it is established by a witness and an oath, according to one narration. And even if we concede that it is not established by that, the testimony here is only regarding the payment of wealth, and emancipation occurs upon its payment by the first contract, and the witness has not testified to it, nor is there a dispute between them regarding it. And it is not impossible that what is established by the testimony of one [witness] is something upon which depends a matter that is not established except by two witnesses, just as birth is established by the testimony of one woman, and it results in the establishment of lineage, which is not established by the testimony of women, nor by the testimony of one [man].

Section: If the slave has no witness and the master denies it, then the statement is his [the master's] with his oath; because he is a denier. And if the slave says: I have an absent witness, he is granted three days of respite, and if he brings him, [it is accepted], otherwise the master takes an oath. Then, whenever his witness comes and gives testimony, his freedom is established. And if he comes with a witness but he is impugned, and he says: I have an absent witness who is upright (adl), he is granted three days of respite; for the reason we have mentioned.

Section: And if the master acknowledges the receipt of the kitaba wealth, the slave is emancipated, provided he is someone whose acknowledgment is valid. And if he acknowledges that during his terminal illness, it is accepted; because it is an acknowledgment in favor of a non-heir, and the acknowledgment of a sick person for a non-heir is accepted. And when he says: I have received my entire kitaba, the slave is emancipated. And if he says: I have received all of it, if Allah wills, or if Zayd wills, he is emancipated, and the exception has no effect; because this exception is not...