I say: Of the four opinions regarding set-off, the soundest is that one of the two debts is extinguished by the other without the parties’ consent. The second view makes that contingent on the consent of both; the third, on the consent of either one of them; and the fourth holds that no cancellation occurs at all. Allah knows best.

Should the master rescind the contract he must do so in the presence of witnesses. If, after the slave has handed over the price, the master claims, “I had already revoked the kitābah,” and the slave denies it, the slave is credited upon swearing an oath.

The stronger opinion is that an invalid kitābah is annulled by the master’s insanity, loss of consciousness, or legal interdiction—not by the slave’s insanity.

If the slave alleges the existence of a kitābah and his master, or the master’s heir, denies it, the denial is accepted; the heir must swear an oath that he knows nothing of such a contract.

When the two parties disagree over the amount or description of the instalments, they both swear. If the slave has not yet delivered the sum he asserts, the kitābah is not dissolved on the stronger view; rather, should they fail to reach agreement, the judge rescinds it.

If, however, the master has already taken the disputed sum and the mukātab says that part of what was taken was merely on deposit, the slave is set free. He may recover what he paid, the master may recover its value, and the two claims may be set off against each other.

If the master contends, “I concluded the kitābah while I was insane or under interdiction,” and the slave denies it, the master is believed provided it is known that the alleged incapacity pre-dated the contract; otherwise, the slave’s word prevails.

Likewise, if the master says, “I remitted the first instalment,” or “I forgave part of it,” while the slave replies, “Rather, it was the other instalment—or the whole amount,” the master’s statement is accepted.

Suppose a man dies leaving two sons and a slave, and the slave claims, “Your father bound me by a kitābah.” If both sons deny it, their denial stands; if they both confirm it, the slave is regarded as a mukātab. Should one of them free his share, the sounder opinion is that the slave does not immediately become free: his status is suspended. If he then pays the other heir’s share, he is fully emancipated and his patronage (walāʾ) belongs to the father. If he becomes unable to pay, the slave is appraised against the liberator, provided the latter is solvent; otherwise, the liberator’s portion is free while the remaining share remains an outright slave for the other heir.

I say: the more apparent view is that the slave is set free. Allah knows best.

If only one of the two heirs affirms the kitābah, his share is mukātab while the share of the one who denies it remains a full slave. If the affirming heir then manumits his share, the prevailing opinion is that he must compensate the co-heir for its value if he is able to do so.