make the acknowledgment unless he builds it for him. But if he acknowledges it and says, “The house is yours,” then says, “Settle with me on the condition that I may build,” this will generally make no sense except where he has prevented him from doing so. We have previously stated that a settlement based on an acknowledgment is invalid if it is made conditional, or if he is prevented from his right without it.

His statement, “Or if he settles with a legally accountable person so that he acknowledges being his slave”: this generally occurs as a legal stratagem. For example, he says, “So-and-so, I want to claim that you are my slave. Come and acknowledge this before the judge.” So he does, and they go to the judge. He says, “This is my slave, and I want you to document my ownership of him.” The other replies, “Yes.” The judge then writes a document stating that So-and-so, son of So-and-so, is the slave of So-and-so. This is invalid, because a free person cannot become a slave. Indeed, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said that Allah, Most High, says:

“There are three whose adversary I will be on the Day of Resurrection: a man who gives his word in My Name and then betrays it; a man who sells a free person and consumes his price; and a man who hires a worker, takes his full labour from him, and does not pay him his wages.” (1)

If someone were to ask: Can this actually happen?

The answer is: Yes. Two people may agree that one of them will acknowledge himself to be the other’s slave. Then the person in whose favour the acknowledgment was made sells him, takes the price, and says to the one who acknowledged being a slave, “The price is to be shared between you and me.” He then instructs him, saying, “When I sell you to So-and-so and take the price, you must run away.” Therefore, we say that this settlement is invalid. It is forbidden and is among the major sins, because the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, informed us that Allah is the adversary of such people. This is a threat.