it does not detract from the purpose of the mukataba, which is manumission through it. It is possible for the spreading (sariya) of manumission to occur without harm, such as if he enters into a mukataba for twice his value; then, when he becomes free to him, he compensates his partner for half his value and delivers the remaining wealth to him, obtaining the wala' (right of patronage) of the slave, and there is no harm in this. Furthermore, even if there were harm in it, he has consented to it [at the time of his mukataba on a more distant term than what his partner contracted with him, and harm that is consented to] by the party being harmed is of no consideration, just as if he had initiated it with manumission or released him from the debt of the mukataba; he becomes free to him, his manumission spreads, and he compensates his partner, and this is permissible, so this is more deserving of permissibility.

It is not permissible for them to differ in the staging of installments, nor for one of them to have more in the installments before the final installment than the other, according to one of the two views, because it is not permissible for him to pay to both of them except equally, and it is not permissible to prioritize one of them in payment over the other. Their disagreement regarding the timing of the installments and the amount paid in them leads to that. The second view is that it is permissible, because it is possible to hasten for the one whose installment is delayed before its due time, and to give the one whose installment amount is small more than his due, and it is possible for one of them to grant him permission to pay to the other before him, or more than him, and it is possible for the one whose installment has come due to grant him a delay, or for the one entitled to more to be satisfied with taking less than his right. If the contract can possibly lead to its purpose, we do not invalidate it based on the possibility of it not leading to it.

Section: The mukatab may not pay one of them more than the other, nor may he prioritize one of them over the other. This was mentioned by the Qadi, and it is the school of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. I know of no disagreement regarding this, because they are equal in it, so they are equal in his earnings, and their right is attached to what is in his hand with a single attachment, so he may not single out one of them with any part of it to the exclusion of the other. Also, because he might become incapacitated and return to servitude, and they would be equal in his earnings, so one of them would have recourse against the other for what is in his hand of the excess after having benefited from it for a period. If one of them takes something without the other, the taking is not valid, and the other has the right to take his share from him if he had not permitted the taking. If he had permitted it, there are two views, which Abu Bakr mentioned. One of them is that it is valid, because the prohibition is for his right, so it is permissible with his permission, just as if the pledgee permitted the pledger to dispose of it, or the seller permitted the buyer to take the sold item before the payment of its price, or they both permitted the mukatab to donate, and because if they both permitted him to