the two things, just as if he had emancipated him or killed him. The second [narration] is that he is obligated to pay the indemnity of all the offenses, no matter how much it reaches, because if he had surrendered him, it is possible that someone would desire him for more than his value, so he has forfeited that increase by choosing to retain him, thus he is liable for the entire indemnity. This differs from the case where he emancipates him or kills him, because in those two cases, the financial value of the object has perished, so it was impossible to surrender him, and thus no more than his value was due. Here, the object remains, and it is possible to surrender him and sell him. If the mukatab wishes to ransom himself before his incapacity or emancipation, there are two views regarding it: one is that he ransoms himself for the lesser of the two things; the second is that he ransoms himself for the indemnity of the offenses, no matter how much it reaches, because the object of the indemnity exists and has not perished, and it is possible for him to render himself incapacitated for every offense so that he may be sold for it, so it is similar to the case where his master renders him incapacitated.

Section: If the mukatab commits an offense against his master in a matter other than life, the master is his adversary in it. If it is one necessitating retribution, it is mandatory, just as it is mandatory upon his absolute slave, because retribution is mandatory for deterrence, and the slave is in need of it regarding his master's right. If he pardons for wealth, or if it was an offense necessitating wealth from the outset, it becomes due to him, because the mukatab is like a stranger in relation to his master; it is valid for him to conduct sales with him, and wealth and rights are established in his liability, and the same applies to an offense. He ransoms himself for the lesser of the two things, according to one of the two narrations; the other is that he ransoms it for the indemnity of the offense, no matter how much it reaches. If he fulfills what is in his possession with what is due upon him, his master may demand it of him and take it. If he does not fulfill it with it, his master may render him incapacitated. When he renders him incapacitated and annuls the kitaba, the wealth of the kitaba and the indemnity of the offense drop from him, because he has returned to being an absolute slave, and no debt is established for the master against his absolute slave. If his master emancipates him while he has no wealth in his possession, the indemnity drops, because it was attached to his person, and he has destroyed it, so it dropped. If he has wealth in his possession, it does not drop, because the right was attached to the liability and the wealth in his possession; thus, when the person perished, the right remained attached to the wealth and was exacted from it.