his slave woman, and he commits an offense, its indemnity is attached to his person, and the mukatab may ransom him without his master's permission, just as he ransoms others of his slaves. The Qadi said in "al-Mujarrad": He does not have the right to ransom him without his [master's] permission. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because it is a squandering of his wealth, for his unmarriageable relatives (dhu rahim mahram) are not his property, nor does he exercise control over them, so it is not permissible for him to expend his wealth in their regard, nor to purchase them, like a charitable donation. This differs from an unrelated slave; for he benefits from him, and he may spend his [labor] on his kitaba (contract of manumission), so he is permitted to ransom him and purchase him, like all other assets. However, if this offender has earnings, he is ransomed from them, and if he has no earnings, he is sold for the offense, if it covers his value. If it does not cover it, a portion of him is sold for it, and what remains is for the mukatab. Our position is that he is a slave of his who committed an offense, so he possesses the right to ransom him, like his other slaves, and we do not concede that he lacks the right to purchase him. Regarding their statement: "He does not exercise control over him," we say: Except that his earnings belong to him, and if the mukatab becomes insolvent, he becomes a slave along with him for his master, and if the mukatab fulfills [his obligation], the master is not harmed by their emancipation, and the mukatab benefits from him. When his affair involves a balance between a benefit and the negation of harm, it is necessary that he not be prohibited from it. It differs from a charitable donation, for that involves a loss of wealth to the master. If it is said: Rather, there is harm in it, which is preventing him from fulfilling the kitaba, for if he spends the wealth on him and is unable to spend it on the kitaba, he becomes insolvent regarding it. We say: The mukatab is not prohibited from this harm; as evidenced by the fact that if he leaves off earning while being able to, or refuses to fulfill [the payment] while being capable of it, he is not prohibited from doing so, nor is he compelled to earn or fulfill it, so likewise he is not prohibited from what is similar in meaning, nor from what leads to it. Furthermore, because the ultimate harm in this is the prevention of completing the kitaba, and completing it is not an obligation upon him, so it resembles leaving off earning. Indeed, this is more appropriate for two reasons: First, that this contains a benefit for the master, as they become slaves to him. Second, that this contains a benefit for the mukatab by emancipating his son and his unmarriageable relatives, and a benefit for them through emancipation, upon the condition of fulfillment. So if he is not prohibited from what is equal in harm without any benefit in it,