views. The second is that it is counted against him, because the kitaba wealth is a deferred debt, so the period of imprisonment is counted as part of the term, like other deferred debts. Based on this view, he is entitled to the equivalent wage (ajr mithl) for the period he was imprisoned. The first [view] is more correct; because his master is obligated to enable him to conduct transactions during his kitaba, and if he imprisons him for a period, he is obligated to delay his term by a similar period in order to fulfill what is due to him. Furthermore, his imprisonment leads to the invalidation of the kitaba, the loss of its objective, and his return to slavery. Additionally, his inability to pay his installments at their due time is due to a cause from his master, so he does not deserve to rescind the contract thereby, just as if a seller prevented a buyer from paying the price, he would not deserve to rescind the sale for that reason (11). Likewise, if a wife prevented her husband from providing for her, he would not deserve to rescind the contract for that reason (11); it is the same here. The third view is that his master is obligated to provide whichever of the two is gentler to him: either granting him a similar period of respite or paying the equivalent wage; because the cause for both has occurred, so the one most beneficial to the mukatab is chosen.

Section: If he bequeaths (13) that his slave be granted kitaba, the bequest is valid; because the kitaba involves both the right of Allah Almighty and the right of the human being (14). If he bequeaths (15) it, it is valid, and its value is calculated from his third; because it is a charitable donation (tabarru') on his part, as it is a sale (16) of his property for his property. If it falls within the third, the kitaba is binding (17) upon them, and the kitaba wealth is not considered part of his estate. The Qadi mentioned this; because it is the growth and benefit of his property, and because consideration is given to the state at the time of death, and he does not own the kitaba wealth. Then one looks; if he specified the kitaba wealth, they grant him kitaba upon it, whether it is less than his value, equal to it, or more. If he did not specify it, they grant him kitaba based on what the custom entails for someone like him. Custom dictates that a slave is granted kitaba for more than his value because it is a deferred debt. It is mandatory to return his profit (ray') to him. The consent of the slave is considered in this; because the kitaba is not binding upon him, and it is not permissible to compel him to it,