and Al-Nakha'i, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Al-Thawri, Al-Hasan ibn Salih, and Abu Hanifah. Our companions did not differentiate between long and short travel, but (2) the established school of thought (madhhab) is that he is permitted to prevent him from traveling if the installments of his kitaba contract fall due before he completes it (3), because it becomes impossible with travel to fulfill the installments on time, or for the master to reclaim him into servitude (4) in the event of his incapacity; therefore, he is prevented from it, like a debtor upon whom the debt falls due before the duration of his travel. There is a divergence of opinion attributed to Al-Shafi'i; he said in one place that he has the right to travel, [and in another opinion: he does not have the right to travel] (5). Some of his companions said there are two opinions on this. Others said: It is not a matter of two conflicting opinions, but rather it concerns two different circumstances. The instance in which he said he has the right to travel is when it is a short journey, because it is in the same legal category as being present. The instance in which he prohibited it is when it is a long journey, during which (6) the fulfillment of his installments and the reclamation of his status as a slave upon his incapacity becomes impossible. Our argument is that the mukatab is in possession of himself, and the master only has a debt claim against him, so he is like a free debtor, and what they mentioned has no basis, and it is invalidated by the case of a free debtor (7).

Section: If the master stipulates in the kitaba contract that he shall not travel, Al-Qadi said: The condition is void. This is the view of Al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Al-Sha'bi, Al-Nakha'i, and Abu Hanifah, because it contradicts the requirement of the contract, so the condition is not valid, like the condition of ceasing to earn an income. Also, because he is a debtor, it is not valid to impose a condition of not traveling upon him, just as if one were to lend (8) a man (9) a loan on the condition that he does not travel. Abu Al-Khattab said: The condition is valid, and the master has the right to prevent him from traveling. This is the view of Malik, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Muslims are bound by their conditions" (10). Furthermore, it is a condition that provides a benefit, so it is binding, just as if he had stipulated a known cash amount. The explanation of its benefit is that he is not secure (11) against him running away, and he would not return to his master, causing the loss of the slave and the money owed by him,