charity with something, the receipt of the donee for it is valid, and so it is here. The second [view] is that it is not permissible. This is the selection of Abu Bakr, the school of Abu Hanifa, one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, and the selection of al-Muzani, because what is in the mukatab's hand is his own property, so the permission of someone else regarding it is not effective; the right of his master is only in his legal capacity (dhimma). The first [view] is more correct, if Allah the Almighty wills, because the right belongs to them and does not depart from them, so if they agree on something, there is no basis for prohibition. Their saying that "it is property belonging to the mukatab" is a attachment of the cause to something contrary to what it necessitates, because it being his property necessitates the permissibility of his disposing of it according to his choice, and the prohibition exists only due to the attachment of his master's right to it. When he grants permission, the preventative factor is removed, so the taking of possession becomes valid, due to the presence of its requirement and its freedom from the preventative factor. Then it is invalidated by what we have mentioned of the issues. Based on this view, if he pays the mukataba wealth to one of them with the permission of his partner, his share of the mukatab is freed, because he has received his due, and the manumission spreads to the remainder, and he is liable for the value of his partner's share because his manumission is due to him. This is the statement of al-Khiraqi. He is liable for it immediately at half his value as a mukatab, remaining upon what remains of his mukataba, and all his wala' (right of patronage) is his, and what is in his hand of wealth belongs to the one who did not receive from him, in the amount of what his partner received, and the remainder is between the slave and his master to whom he became free, because half of him was freed by the mukataba and half by the spreading (sariya), so the share of what was freed by mukataba belongs to the slave, and the share of what was freed by sariya belongs to his master. According to what we have selected, the remainder is entirely for the slave, because the earnings were his property, so his ownership does not cease upon his manumission, just as if he were freed through payment. Abu Bakr and the Qadi said: The manumission does not spread immediately; it only spreads when he becomes incapacitated. So according to their view, he remains in the mukataba; if he pays the other, he is freed to both of them, his wala' is for both of them, and what remains in his hand of his earnings is his. If he becomes incapacitated and his mukataba is annulled, he is appraised regarding the one to whom he paid, all of his wala' is for him, and the mukataba is annulled regarding his half. If he dies, he has died while half of him was free and half of him was a slave, and his master whose share was not freed has the right to take from what he left behind the equivalent of what his partner took of the mukataba wealth, and he has half of what remains, and the rest is for the heirs of the slave.