and the condition are both invalid; because the condition is invalid, and it is impossible to validate the contract without it, for the master was only satisfied with the contract given this condition. Therefore, if it is not established, he was not satisfied with the contract. Malik and Abu Hanifah said: The contract and the condition are both valid, because it is an implication of the contract according to them. Our view is that the kitaba property is not binding, nor does it lead to being binding; therefore, guaranteeing it is not valid, just as if he made the property a mere attribute for emancipation, saying: "If you pay me a thousand, you are free." Furthermore, a guarantor is not liable for more than what the person guaranteed is liable for, and the kitaba property is not binding upon the mukatab, so it is not binding upon the guarantor. Also, the guarantee is an act of benevolence (tabarru'), and the mukatab has no right to perform benevolence. Additionally, one does not possess the right to guarantee for a free person, nor for someone who is not with him in the kitaba, and thus the same applies to one who is with him. As for the contract, it is valid because the kitaba does not become invalid due to the invalidity of the condition, as evidenced by the report of Barira, and we shall mention that hereafter, if Allah the Almighty wills.

Section: If some of the mukatabs die, the amount of their share is dropped. Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, stated this in a narration by Hanbal. It is the same if some of them are emancipated. From Malik, if the master emancipates one of them and he was an earner, his emancipation does not take effect because it harms the others; but if he was not an earner, his emancipation takes effect because there is no harm in it. This is built upon the view that none of them is emancipated until the entire kitaba property is paid, and the discussion on that has already passed.

Section: If one of the two mukatabs pays on behalf of his companion, or on behalf of another mukatab, before the payment of what is due upon him without the knowledge of his master, it is not valid; because this is an act of benevolence, and he has no right to perform benevolence without the permission of his master. If a star (installment) has fallen due upon him, it is diverted to that. If no star has fallen due upon him, he may recover it. If the master knows of this and consents to receiving it on behalf of the other, it is valid; because his receiving it while being content with it, accompanied by knowledge, is evidence of permission for it, so it is permitted, just as if he had explicitly given permission for it. If the payment was after he had been emancipated,