And it does not occur, because his right is nullified by it. Whenever he becomes incapacitated, he returns as a slave to the heirs. If he bequeaths to a man what the mukatab pays in advance, it is valid, because it is a bequest with a condition. If he pays anything in advance, it belongs to the legatee, and if he does not pay anything until his installments become due, the bequest becomes void.

Section: If he bequeaths the wealth of the kitaba to a man, and his person to another, both bequests are valid. If he pays to the owner of the wealth or he grants him release from it, he becomes free. Our companions said: The bequest of the owner of the person becomes void. It is possible that it does not become void, and the wala' would belong to him, because he set him in his own place regarding the entitlement to the person. If he had not bequeathed it, the wala' would have been his, so if he bequeaths it, the wala' belongs to the one to whom he bequeathed it. Furthermore, if he had bequeathed the mukatab to him generally, the wala' would be his, so it is the same if he bequeathed his person, because the wala' is derived from the bequest of the person, not the bequest of the wealth. If he becomes incapacitated, the owner of the person annuls his kitaba, and he remains a slave to him, and the bequest of the wealth becomes void. If the owner of the wealth has already received anything from his kitaba, it belongs to him. If they differ regarding the annulment of the kitaba upon incapacity, the statement of the owner of the person is given priority, because he stands in the place of the heirs, based on what we have explained previously. The analogy of this issue is that if he bequeathed the person of the mukatab to a man without the wealth of the kitaba, it would be valid, because a bequest of the person without the wealth is valid, in the case where he bequeaths it to a man alone, and bequeaths the wealth to another.

Section: If the kitaba is invalid, and he bequeaths to a man what is in the liability of the mukatab, the bequest is not valid, because there is nothing in his liability. If he says: "I have bequeathed to you what I collect from the wealth of the kitaba," it is valid, because in an invalid kitaba, the wealth is paid just as it is paid in a valid one. If he bequeaths the person of the mukatab, it is valid, because the bequest of the person of the mukatab is valid in a valid kitaba, so it is even more appropriate in an invalid one.