Section: If he bequeaths the mukatab to a man, Abu Bakr says that Ahmad said: The bequest of him is valid, because he views his sale as permissible, and likewise his gifting. The one to whom he is transferred stands in the place of his master regarding payment to him. If he becomes incapacitated, he returns to him as his slave, and if he becomes free, the wala' (right of patronage) belongs to him, just as we mentioned regarding the buyer. If he becomes incapacitated during the lifetime of the testator, the bequest does not become void, because his servile status does not contradict the bequest. If he performs the payment and becomes free during the lifetime of the testator, the bequest becomes void. Whoever forbids the sale of the mukatab also forbids the bequest of him, as well as his gifting. If he says: "If he becomes incapacitated and remains a slave, he is yours after my death," the bequest is valid if he becomes incapacitated during the lifetime of the testator. If he becomes incapacitated after his death, he does not acquire him, because the condition became void with his death, just as if he said to his slave: "If you enter the house, you are free after my death," and he did not enter it until his master died. If he says: "If he becomes incapacitated after my death, he is yours," this is a suspension of the bequest upon a condition that is found after death, and we have already mentioned two viewpoints regarding its validity.

Section: If he bequeaths his kitaba to a man, the bequest is valid, because it is valid to bequeath what is not settled, just as it is valid to bequeath what he does not own at the present time, such as the fruit of a tree or the fetus of his slave-woman. The legatee has the right to take possession of the wealth when it becomes due, and he has the right to grant release from it. When he takes possession of it or grants release from it, the mukatab becomes free, and the wala' belongs to his [original] master, because he is the one who bestowed the favor upon him. If the mukatab becomes incapacitated and the heir wishes to declare him incapacitated while the legatee wishes to grant him respite, the word of the heir is taken, because the right of the legatee is in the wealth as long as the contract exists, while the right of the heir is attached to him, as he returns him to slavery if he becomes incapacitated, and the legatee has no right to nullify the right of the heir to declare him incapacitated. If the heir wishes to grant him respite and the legatee wishes to declare him incapacitated, he cannot do so, because the right to declare incapacity and dissolve the contract belongs to the heir, and the legatee has no right in that.