What is the ruling if the contractually obligated slave (*mukatab*) claims fulfillment of his *kitaba* debt and presents a single witness to prove payment?

Primary text

The *mukatab* shall take an oath along with his single witness, and freedom shall be established. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i. The rationale is that the dispute centers on the payment of a financial debt (*mal*), and financial matters permit substantiation through a witness and an oath. Although the purpose of the testimony ultimately leads to emancipation, which typically requires two witnesses, this specific instance of establishing freedom is considered permissible via a single witness and an oath because the testimony itself is directly about the fulfillment of the monetary obligation, and emancipation results from that prior contract. It is permissible for the testimony of one witness to establish a consequence that ordinarily requires two witnesses, as evidenced by the fact that childbirth, established by the testimony of one woman, leads to the establishment of lineage, which typically requires two witnesses or more.