As for the warrior, he takes for our need of him, to the extent that suffices him for his battle. As for the debtor, if he incurred debt for reconciliation between people, he is like the warrior, taking for our need; and if he incurred debt for his own interest, he is like our case [the mukatab], he does not return it.

Section: As for what he paid to his master before his inability to perform, it is not obligatory to return it under any circumstances, because the mukatab disbursed it in the category for which he took it, and the ownership of his master over it was established as a settled ownership; thus, his ownership of it does not cease, just as if the mukatab were to be emancipated. This differs from what is in the hand of the mukatab, because the master's ownership over that was not established prior to this, and there is disagreement regarding the initial establishment of it. As for what perished in the hand of the mukatab, he is not held liable for it, whether he became unable to perform or paid; for his wealth perished in his hand, so it is similar to what happens if what is in the hand of other categories of charity were to perish. If he bought an item with it and became unable to perform, and the item is in his hand, there is the same disagreement regarding it as if he found the specific property itself, because the item is its substitute and stands in its place, so it is similar to if the warrior were given something from charity with which he bought a horse and weapons, and then that exceeded his need.

Section: The death of the mukatab before payment is like his inability to perform, regarding what we have mentioned, because his master takes what is in his hand before the purpose of the kitaba is achieved. And if he pays, and there remains something in his hand, its ruling regarding returning it or taking it for himself is the same as the ruling for his master concerning that upon his inability to perform; because it is wealth that he did not pay in his kitaba, remaining after its cessation. If he had borrowed what he paid for the kitaba, and there remained with him from charity the amount with which he could pay off his debt, he is not required to return it, because he is in need of it by reason of the kitaba, so it is similar to what he needs for its payment.

2009 - Issue; he said: (And when two mukatabs purchase one another, the purchase of the first is valid, and the purchase of the other is void.)

There is no disagreement that a mukatab's purchase of slaves is valid, and a mukatab may be sold, according to what we have mentioned.