In such a case the due instalments are delivered to the master’s guardian, yet payment to the guardian does not, by itself, complete the slave’s emancipation. If the mukātab kills his master, the master’s heir is entitled to retaliation (qiṣāṣ); should the heir pardon in return for blood money, or if the homicide was accidental, that sum is taken from the mukātab’s present assets. If he lacks the means, the heir—according to the sounder view—may have him declared insolvent. The same applies if he severs one of his master’s limbs: retaliation and, upon pardon, the indemnity are treated as above.

If he kills or maims a third party and the victim pardons him for compensation, or if the injury was accidental, the amount due is recovered from what he now possesses and from his future earnings, up to the lesser of his market value or the prescribed indemnity (arsh). When he owns nothing at all and the claimant asks that he be declared insolvent, the judge does so and sells him for the value of the indemnity; any surplus from the sale leaves the kitābah in force for that remainder. The master may ransom him and keep him under the kitābah. Should the master manumit him after the offence, or waive the outstanding price, the mukātab is freed and the master must pay the indemnity. If, on the other hand, the mukātab himself is killed, the contract is annulled, he dies a slave, and the master may exact retaliation from an equal offender; if not, he takes the slave’s market value.

The mukātab may conduct every transaction that is neither gratuitous nor unduly speculative; in any other case he may act only with the master’s permission, and—on the stronger opinion—such dealings are then valid. If he buys a person whose ownership by the master would entail that person’s automatic emancipation, the purchase is sound; should the mukātab later be declared insolvent and revert to the master’s ownership, that person is set free. If he buys someone who would automatically be freed by virtue of the mukātab’s own ownership, the purchase is void without the master’s consent; if consent is given, two opinions exist. Where the purchase is deemed valid, the new slave enters into a kitābah with him. According to the authoritative view, the mukātab may not free a slave of his own, nor establish a kitābah with him, even with the master’s leave.

Section
An invalid kitābah—defective on account of an unlawful condition, consideration, or term—resembles a valid one in several respects: the slave manages his own earnings; he receives any compensation for injuries inflicted upon him and any dowry arising from doubtful intercourse; he gains freedom upon full payment, and his subsequent earnings follow him. It likewise resembles a suspended manumission in that remitting the debt does not set him free, it lapses with the master’s death, a bequest of his person is valid, and he receives nothing from the zakāh share allocated to mukātab slaves.

It differs, however, in that the master may rescind it, and in that ownership of what the master has received does not pass to him. Rather, the mukātab may reclaim what he has paid—provided it is property assessed by value—and the amount remains a debt against him at its worth on the day he is freed. If what is due on either side is of the same genus, the well-known rulings on mutual set-off apply, and whichever party holds the excess may recover the surplus.