al-Shafi'i, except that the Qadi said: Ahmad and al-Khiraqi stated this ruling in absolute terms, while it is restricted to cases where there is no harm in receiving it before its due time, such as that which does not spoil, whose 'old' and 'new' states do not differ, which does not require maintenance costs for its preservation, and which he is not receiving in a state of fear that it might be lost. If any of these matters are deficient, it is not mandatory for him to accept it, such as if it is of a nature that spoils, like grapes, fresh dates, or melons, or if its loss is feared, like livestock, as it might perish before the due time, thus causing him to miss his objective. If it is of a nature where its 'new' state is better than its 'old' state, it is not mandatory for him to take it either, because it diminishes by the time of the due date. If it is of a nature that requires storage, like grain and cotton, it is not mandatory for him [to accept it] either, because he would require maintenance to keep it until the due date, and thus he would be harmed by it. If it were other than this, but the land is dangerous, fearing its looting, it is not mandatory for him to accept it, because in taking it, there is a harm he did not consent to bear. Likewise, if he hands it to him (3) on a dangerous road, or in a place where he would be harmed by taking possession of it there, it is not mandatory for him to take possession of it, and the mukatab is not emancipated by his offering it. The Qadi said: The Madhhab in my view is that there is (4) detail in this, according to what we mentioned in the Salam contract. And because it is not mandatory for a person to undertake harm that the contract did not stipulate, even if he consented to bear it. As for that in which there is no harm in taking possession, when he hastens it, it is mandatory for the master to take it. Abu Bakr mentioned that it is mandatory for him to accept it without detail, relying on the absolute statement of Ahmad regarding that, which is the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement, due to what al-Athram narrated with his chain of transmission from Abu Bakr ibn Hazm, that a man came to 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and said: "O Commander of the Faithful, I contracted for such and such, and I have become affluent with the wealth, so I brought it to him, but he claimed that he would not accept it except in installments." 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "O Yarfa', take this wealth and put it in the public treasury (bayt al-mal), and pay him in installments each year, for this [man] has been emancipated." When his master saw that, he took the wealth (5). And from 'Uthman there is something similar to this (5). Sa'id ibn Mansur narrated it in his "Sunan" from both 'Umar and 'Uthman, saying: Hushaym informed us, from Ibn 'Awn (6), from Muhammad ibn Sirin, that 'Uthman judged accordingly. And because the deferment is a right for the one upon whom the debt lies; so when he brings it forward, he has consented to waiving his right, so it is waived, like other rights. If it