Is the killing of a Mukatab (contracted slave) equivalent to his death regarding the nullification of the contract?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Mukātaba (Contractual Manumission)
Primary text
The killing of a Mukatab results in the nullification of the contract (*kitabah*), similar to his natural death, whether the killer is the master or a third party. No retribution (*qisas*) is due if the killer is a free man, because the Mukatab is considered a slave as long as even one dirham of the redemption price remains due. If the killer is the master and the Mukatab left no assets to cover the remaining debt, the contract is nullified, and all property in the Mukatab's possession reverts to the master without any further obligation upon the master, as the killer does not benefit from killing the person for whom he is heir. If the Mukatab left assets sufficient to cover the debt, and we hold that the contract is nullified by his death, the ruling is the same. If we hold that the contract is not nullified by his death, the value of the Mukatab is due from the master to his heirs, similar to an injury inflicted upon the Mukatab's limbs during his lifetime.
Supporting text
If the fulfillment of the remaining price requires the assessment of value, and cannot be achieved without it, the value is incumbent, as it is treated like assets left behind, which settle debts first before passing to heirs according to prescribed shares. If the deceased Mukatab leaves no heir except his master, the value is not incumbent upon the master in any case, according to a narration cited by Al-Qadi. This is because property of one without heirs goes to the Muslims, and the master has no right to it via inheritance, as the killer is barred from inheritance.