it has no place in an acknowledgment. Ahmad said, in a narration by Abu Talib: If he says: 'He has a thousand [dirhams] against me, if Allah wills,' he is considered an acknowledger of it. And because this exception is a suspension on a condition, and what is suspended on a condition is only the future; whereas the past cannot be suspended, because it has already occurred in a state that cannot be changed by the condition. Rather, the condition in it indicates doubt, so it is as if he said: 'I have received my kitaba, and I am in doubt about it.' Thus, the doubt is invalid, and the acknowledgment is established. And if he says: 'I have received the last part of my kitaba,' and says: 'I only intended that I received the final installment, not what was before it,' and the slave claims his acknowledgment of receiving the whole, then the statement is the master's; because he is more knowledgeable of his [own] intention.

Section: And when the master absolves him from the kitaba wealth, he is acquitted, and he is emancipated; because his liability is cleared of the kitaba wealth, so it is similar to if he had paid it. And if he absolves him from a part of it, he is acquitted of all of it, and he remains under the kitaba for what remains; because absolution is like payment. And if he contracted kitaba with him for dinars, and absolved him from dirhams, or for dirhams, and absolved him from dinars, the absolution is not valid; because he absolved him from what he is not obligated to him for, unless he intends by that the equivalent of what I have against you. If they disagree, and the mukatab says: 'You only intended the value of that,' and the master says: 'Rather, I thought that I had against you the currency from which I absolved you, so the absolution did not fall into its proper place,' then the statement is the master's, with his oath; because he is more knowledgeable of his intention. And if the master dies, and the mukatab disagrees with his heirs, the statement is theirs with their oaths that they do not know their legator intended that. And if the mukatab dies, and his heirs and his master disagree, the statement is the master's; for the reason we mentioned.

1998 - Issue; He said: (The mukatab shall not perform expiation by anything other than fasting)

In sum, when the mukatab is obligated to perform an expiation for zihar, or sexual intercourse during the day in Ramadan, or killing, or an expiation for an oath, he may not perform the expiation with wealth; because he is a slave, and because he is in the ruling of the indigent, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to pay Zakat, nor the maintenance of a relative, and it is permissible for him to receive Zakat due to his need, and the expiation of the slave and the indigent is fasting. And if his master permits him to perform the expiation with wealth, it is permissible; because it is equivalent to a voluntary donation, and it is permissible for him to make a voluntary donation with his master's permission, and because the prohibition is for his [the master's] right, and he has permitted it. [And he is not obligated to perform the expiation with wealth, if] the master [permitted it];