he fulfills it; otherwise, the ruling regarding it is as we mentioned before. If the judge has not placed him under legal restraint, his payment to the master is valid, because he is discharging a right against him, which is permissible, just as if he had paid some of his creditors before being placed under legal restraint. Then, if what he paid him was the entire wealth of the kitaba, he becomes free, and the indemnity remains as a debt in his liability, so he guarantees what was incumbent upon him before the emancipation, which is the lesser of the two things: his value or the indemnity for his offense, because he is not obligated to pay more than what was mandatory due to the offense. If the master emancipates him, he must pay his ransom for it, because he has destroyed the object of entitlement, so he must pay his ransom, just as if he had killed him. If he is incapacitated and the master annuls his kitaba, he must also pay his ransom according to what we have mentioned. Abu Bakr said regarding the case where his master pays his ransom: there are two statements—meaning two narrations—one of which is that he ransoms him for the lesser of the two things, and the second is that he ransoms him for the indemnity of his offense, no matter how much it reaches.

Section: If the mukatab commits multiple offenses, they attach to his person, and the first and the last are equal in satisfaction; the first is not given precedence over the second, because they have attached to a single object. Likewise, if some of them occurred during his kitaba and some after his incapacity, they are equal, and all of them attach to his person. If among them is that which necessitates retribution (qisas), the victim's guardian has the right to exact it, and the rights of others become void. If he pardons for wealth, its ruling becomes the ruling of an offense that necessitates wealth. If some of them forgive him, the remaining ones exact their shares, because the right of each individual attaches to his person and he exacts it if he is alone, so if they gather, they compete for it; if some of them forgive him, their right drops, and the remaining ones compete, just as if they were alone and as in the case of bequests. If he pays and becomes free, the liability is upon him, and if his master emancipates him, the liability is upon him. Whichever of them guarantees it, the duty upon him is the lesser of the two things, as we mentioned in the single offense. And because if the creditors rendered him incapacitated and he returned to being a slave, he would be sold and they would share in his price; it is the same here. As for if his master renders him incapacitated and he returns to being a slave, he is given the choice between ransoming him and surrendering him. If he chooses to ransom him, there are two narrations: one of them is that he ransoms him for the lesser of