Is a master obligated to accept payment for manumission (kitaba) if the payment is alleged to be illicit (haram)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Mukātaba (Contractual Manumission)
Primary text
If a *mukatab* (a slave contracted for freedom) presents the payment for his freedom, or part of it, and the master declares it to be *haram* (illicit) or wrongfully acquired (*ghasb*) and refuses to accept it, the master is not obligated to accept it if the slave admits the allegation. This is because the master is not obliged to accept that which is prohibited, nor is it permissible for him to do so. If the slave denies the allegation and the master possesses evidence supporting his claim of illicit acquisition, the master is still not obligated to accept the payment. The master has the right not to receive his due debt from an illicit source and to guard against the rightful owner of the illicit property pursuing him later. If the master has no evidence, the statement of the slave, accompanied by his oath, is accepted. If the slave refuses to swear the oath, the master remains not obligated to accept the money.
Supporting text
If the slave swears the oath, the master is given the choice: either accept the payment and free the slave, or absolve the slave of the debt so that the slave may be freed by other means. If the master accepts the full payment, the slave is manumitted. If the master claims the money is absolutely *haram*, this claim does not prevent the manumission, as the master is not admitting that the funds belong to a specific third party, but rather that the earning itself is illicit between him and God. If the master claims the money was usurped specifically from a named person (*fulan*), the master is obligated to hand the funds over to that person if they claim it, because the slave's admission is accepted concerning his own legal standing, even if the master initially refused acceptance.