Is a contract of settlement (*musalaha*) valid if a legally contracted slave (*mukatab*) settles his debt with his master using something other than the identical item owed?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Mukātaba (Contractual Manumission)
Primary text
The settlement is valid if the *mukatab* settles his debt, which is owed in kind (e.g., money), with a different commodity (e.g., wheat or barley). However, it is impermissible to settle for a deferred item because this constitutes a sale of debt for debt. If the settlement involves exchanging one form of currency for another (dirhams for dinars) or one grain for another (wheat for barley), the transaction is void until immediate physical possession (*qabd*) is taken, as this is a true sale requiring contemporaneous exchange.
Supporting text
The opinion of Al-Qadi suggests that such a settlement is invalid in all cases because it involves a debt whose nature mandates deferral, and it cannot be settled with something else. Furthermore, since it is an unstable debt, it is treated like a *salam* (advance payment) debt. Ibn Abi Musa held that usury (*riba*) does not apply between the *mukatab* and his master, thus permitting the settlement in any manner, analogous to transactions between a full slave and his master.