Abu Dawud recorded it (33). Furthermore, it is a compensation for the mukatab, so he does not become free before he pays it, just like the amount agreed upon. Moreover, if part of him were to be freed (34), it would spread to the rest of him, as if he had initiated the manumission, because manumission cannot be partially applied within the property. As for the hadith of Ibn Abbas, it is interpreted as applying to a mukatab of a man who died and left two sons, one of whom acknowledged the kitaba contract while the other denied it, and the [muktab] paid to the one who acknowledged it, or similar scenarios, to reconcile between the reports and to harmonize them with analogical reasoning (qiyas). Moreover, the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: "If any of you has a mukatab who possesses what he can pay, then she should observe hijab (veiling) from him" (35) is evidence for the consideration of everything that is paid, and it is permissible for the manumission to be contingent upon the payment of the entire amount, even if it is permissible for some of it to be returned to him, as if one were to say: "If you pay me one thousand, you are free, and it is incumbent upon me (36) to return a quarter of it to you." In this case, he does not become free before the payment of the entire amount, even if it is obligatory for him to return some of it.

Section: Kitaba is permissible for any property for which the salam (forward sale) contract is permissible; because it is property that is fixed as a liability on credit within a commutative contract, so it is permitted, like the salam contract. If it is in the form of currencies (athman), and there is only one type of currency in the town, it is permissible to leave the specification general; because it is understood by default to refer to that [currency], so it is permissible, like in sales. If there are multiple currencies, one of which is more common in usage, it is also permissible to leave it general, and it refers to that [common currency] by default, just as if it were the only one. If they are different and equal in usage, it is obligatory to specify it by its genus, and what distinguishes it from other currencies. If it is property other than currencies, it is obligatory to describe it with the same descriptors as in a salam contract. Whatever is not valid for a salam contract cannot be a compensation in a kitaba contract; because it is a commutative contract where the compensation is fixed as a liability, so it cannot be for an unknown compensation, like in a salam. If he enters into a kitaba contract with him for an unspecified slave, it is not valid. Abu Bakr mentioned this, and it is the view of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi mentioned regarding it (39)