some of his wealth from his slave, and from Allah, the Exalted, comes the waiving of what He made obligatory upon him regarding the term for his own benefit. It differs from other debts for the reasons we have mentioned, and it differs from strangers in that this is his slave; thus, he is more akin to his absolute slave (qinn). As for their statement that usury operates between them, we deny this based on what Ibn Abi Musa mentioned. Even if we were to concede it, this case is distinct from other forms of usury for what we have mentioned. This differs from the usury of the Jahiliyyah, for it is a waiving of a portion of the debt, while the usury of the Jahiliyyah is an increase in the debt; and the usury of the Jahiliyyah leads to the depletion of the debtor's wealth and him taking on debt he is unable to fulfill, for which he is imprisoned and taken captive. This, however, leads to hastening the emancipation of the mukatab, his deliverance from servitude, and the lightening of his burden; thus, they are distinct.

Section: If they agree upon an increase in the term and the debt, such as if he concludes a kitaba contract with him for one thousand in two installments over a year, to be paid as five hundred in the middle and the remainder at the end, and they change it to two years for one thousand and two hundred, with six hundred each year, or if an installment falls due and he says, "Delay it for me until such-and-such time, and I will increase you by such-and-such," it is possible that this is not permissible. This is because a debt deferred until a specific time cannot have its term delayed beyond its time by their mutual agreement, nor does its term change by changing it. If it is not delayed beyond its time, the increase in exchange for it is not valid. Furthermore, this resembles the forbidden usury of the Jahiliyyah, which is an increase in the debt for an increase in the term, and it differs from the first issue in these two respects. If it is said, "Just as the term is not delayed, it is not hastened, and the deferred debt does not become immediately due; so why was it permissible in the first issue?" We say, it was only permissible in the first issue by hastening it in reality. For if he pays the deferred debt to him before its due date, it is permissible, and it is permissible for the master to waive the remainder of his due right upon him. In this issue, however, he takes more than what the contract was concluded upon, so it is the opposite of the first issue, and it is prohibited for another reason: because within the kitaba,