and returned the other. It differs from acknowledgment, for it is not a consideration. Once this is established, whoever pays his portion is emancipated. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Ibn Abi Musa said: None of them is emancipated until the entire kitaba consideration is paid. This was narrated from Abu Bakr, and it is the view of Malik. It was narrated from him that if one of them refuses to work while being capable of it, the others compel him to do so. They argued that the kitaba is one; evidenced by the fact that it is not valid for each one of them to have a kitaba contract for only his portion without the rest, nor is emancipation achieved except by paying the entire kitaba consideration, just as if the mukatab were a single person. Abu Hanifah said: If the master did not say to them, "If you pay, you are emancipated," then whichever of them pays his portion is emancipated. If he pays all of it, they are all emancipated, and he has no recourse against his two companions for anything. But if he said to them, "If you pay, you are emancipated," then none of them is emancipated until the entire kitaba consideration is paid, and some of them are guarantors for others, and he may take whichever of them he wishes for the money. If any of them pays it, they are all emancipated, and he has recourse against his two companions for their portions. Our view is that it is a contract of exchange with three people, so each one of them is acquitted by paying his portion, as if they had purchased a slave, and as if he had not said to them, "If you pay, you are emancipated." According to the view of Abu Hanifah, his saying that is of no effect, because entitlement to emancipation is through the payment of the consideration, not through this statement, evidenced by the fact that he is emancipated by payment without this statement, and it has not been established that this statement is an impediment to emancipation. We do not accept that this contract is a single kitaba; for a contract with a group constitutes multiple contracts, as evidenced by sale, and it is not valid to draw an analogy with the kitaba of a single person; for what he stipulated there is in exchange for his emancipation, while here it is in exchange for his specific share, so they are distinct. Once this is established, if he stipulates in the contract that each one of them is a guarantor for the others, then the condition is invalid, but the contract is valid. Abu al-Khattab said: There is another narration regarding the condition that it is valid. Ibn Hamid derived an alternative ruling from this, based on the two narrations regarding the guarantee by a free person for the debt of kitaba. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The contract