What is the ruling when a master bequeaths the emancipation or cancellation of the *kitaba* (manumission contract) debt for his slave, and the lesser of the slave's value or the debt amount exceeds the master's one-third bequest allowance?

Primary text

The ruling is analogous to the case where the master frees the slave or forgives the debt during illness. However, the emancipation requires immediate execution because it was stipulated by will. If the lesser amount does not fit within the one-third allowance, emancipation occurs to the extent of the one-third portion. That portion of the *kitaba* debt is canceled, and the remainder of the debt remains. If the slave pays the remainder, full emancipation is effected. If the slave is unable to pay, that remainder remains as debt, and the slave remains enslaved for that portion. The correct juristic opinion (*madhhab*) dictates that the emancipation equivalent to one-third becomes immediately effective, similar to the ruling concerning a master who stipulates manumission upon death (*tadbir*) for a slave while possessing hidden wealth or a present, recoverable debt. This is because the right of the heirs to the remaining estate is assured of realization, as the remainder of the debt will either be paid, reverting the slave to bondage, or it will not, leading to full freedom. The jurists supporting this view hold that the right of the heirs is sufficiently secured.