appointed him as an agent. If he explicitly authorized him, he still does not constitute an agent for taking possession; rather, his authorization is by virtue of the exchange, so there is no difference between expressing it explicitly or not. If we say: he becomes free upon payment, the mukatab is discharged from the kitaba debt, and the master recovers from the buyer what he took possession of, because he is like his deputy. If it [the payment] was of the same species as the price and it has perished, they settle the account by the amount of the lesser of the two, and the one who has the surplus recovers his surplus. If we say: he does not become free by that, then the kitaba debt remains upon the mukatab, the mukatab recovers from the buyer what he paid to him, and the buyer recovers from the seller. If the buyer delivers it to the seller, the delivery is not valid, because he took possession of it without the permission of the mukatab, so it is like if he had taken it from his property without his permission. If it was of a different species than the kitaba wealth, they settle with each other for what each of them is owed by the other. If he [the seller] sells to him what he took by means of what he owes him in his liability, and it is something that is permissible to sell, it is valid if what the master took possession of still remains. If it has perished and its value has become due, and it was of the same species as the kitaba wealth, they perform a set-off. If the seized property is of the same species as the kitaba wealth and they account for it, it is valid.

Section: If the mukatab is one who has a child that follows her in the kitaba, and he sells them both together, it is valid because they are his property, and there is no obstacle to selling them; they remain with the buyer exactly as they were with the seller. If he sells one of them without the other, or sells one to a man and the other to someone else, it is not valid, for two reasons: First, that it is not permissible to separate a mother from her child in a sale, except after the child reaches puberty, according to one of the two narrations. Second, that the child is a follower of his mother, and she is entitled to his earnings and is responsible for his maintenance, so he is in the same category as her owned property; thus it is not permissible to separate him from her. It is possible that this is permissible if he is an adult, because he is an object of sale, and the act of disposal was issued regarding him by someone qualified to do so; he would be the slave of whoever is his slave, as he was before selling him, and [the mother] is entitled to his earnings and the indemnity for any injury inflicted upon him, and she is responsible for his maintenance, and he is emancipated upon her emancipation, just as if he were sold. And Allah knows best.