When a *mudabbar* claims earnings in his possession after his manumission was acquired through labor performed after freedom, versus the heirs claiming the earnings were acquired before manumission, whose statement is accepted?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Tadbir (Deferred Emancipation)
Primary text
The statement of the *mudabbar* is accepted because the property is in his possession, and the ownership of the heirs over it is not established. This differs from the son of a bondswoman (*um walad*), as the latter was a slave to them. However, if each party brings forth evidence supporting their claim, the evidence of the heirs is prioritized by those who prioritize the evidence of the claimant who is outside the possession, and the evidence of the *mudabbar* is prioritized by those who prioritize the evidence of the claimant who is inside the possession.
Supporting text
If the *mudabbar* admits that the property was in his possession during the master's life and his freedom was subsequently established afterward, the statement of the heir is accepted because the default principle rests with them. If the *mudabbar* then presents evidence supporting his claim, it is accepted and takes precedence over the heirs' evidence, if they have any, because the *mudabbar's* evidence testifies to an addition. If the *mudabbar* does not admit possession during the master's life, and the heirs present evidence of such possession, there are two views on whether their evidence is accepted.