What is the ruling regarding a master unlawfully confining his contracted slave (Mukatab)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Mukātaba (Contractual Manumission)
Primary text
If a master confines his contracted slave for a period, he has committed an offense. In one established view, this period of confinement is not counted against the slave's payment term for manumission (Kitabah). This opinion is deemed the most correct because the master has an obligation to allow the slave the freedom to conduct business during the term of his contract. If the master confines the slave, he must delay the payment term by an equivalent amount so the slave may fulfill his obligations. Furthermore, confinement leads to the nullification of the contract and the loss of its purpose, returning the slave to bondage. The confinement rendering the slave unable to pay his installments on time is a consequence stemming from the master's action, and thus does not warrant the dissolution of the contract, similar to a seller preventing a buyer from paying the price, or a wife preventing her husband from providing maintenance.
Supporting text
A second view holds that the period of confinement is counted against the slave's term for manumission. This is because the payment for manumission is considered a deferred debt, and thus the confinement period is deducted from the term, just like in other deferred debts. Consequently, the master is required to pay the slave the fair rental value (Ujr Mithl) for the period he was confined.