perform them, and he may begin with whichever of them he wishes, like a free man. If what he has in his possession does not suffice for them, and they are all due, and the judge has not placed him under interdiction (hajr), then if he allocates payment to some of them, it is valid, like a free man. And if among them there is [a debt that is] deferred, and he accelerates its payment without the permission of his master, it is not permissible; because his accelerating it is a charitable act, and it is not permitted without his master's permission, like a gift. If it is with his master's permission, it is permissible, like a gift. If the acceleration is for the master, his acceptance is equivalent to his permission. If the judge has placed him under interdiction at the request of his creditors, then the matter is up to the judge; he only places him under interdiction at their request, so if he places him under interdiction without their request, it is not valid, because the right belongs to them, so it cannot be fulfilled without their permission. If his master asks him to place him under interdiction, he does not grant him that; because his right is not established, so he does not place him under interdiction on his account. When he places him under interdiction at the request of the creditors, the Qadi said: In my view, he should begin by paying the price of the sold item and the compensation for the loan, treating them equally, and prioritizing them over the indemnity for the offense and the kitaba wealth; because the indemnity of the offense is attached to the person of the slave, and if it is not realized from what is in his possession, it is fulfilled from his person, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i. Our companions and al-Shafi'i agreed on prioritizing the indemnity of the offense over the kitaba wealth, according to what has already been explained.

Section: If some of the mukatab’s slaves commit an offense that requires retribution, the victim has the choice between retribution and wealth; if he chooses wealth, or the offense was by error, or quasi-intentional, or destruction of property, its indemnity is attached to his person. The mukatab may ransom him for the lesser of the two things: his value or the indemnity of his offense; because he is in the position of purchasing him, and he does not have the right to ransom him for more than his value, just as it is not permissible for him to purchase him for that, unless his master permits it. If the indemnity is less than his value, he may not hand him over; because he would be donating the excess. If the indemnity exceeds his value, is he obligated to hand him over, or does he ransom him for the lesser of the two things? There are two narrations.

Section: If the mukatab comes to own his son, or some of his unmarriageable relatives (dhu rahim mahram), or a child is born to him from his slave woman,