it is valid, whether the master knows or does not know. If he wishes to seek recourse against his companion for what he paid on his behalf, we examine the matter: if he intended to perform an act of benevolence towards him, he may not seek recourse. If he paid it intending to seek recourse against him, and the payment was made with the permission of the one for whom payment was made, then it is a loan that he is obligated to repay, just as if he had borrowed it from him. If it was without his permission, he may not seek recourse against him, because it is an act of benevolence towards him by paying what he is not obligated to pay without his permission, so he may not seek recourse against him, just as if he had given him voluntary charity; in this, it differs from other debts. If it was with his permission and he demands its settlement, it is prioritized over the payment of the kitaba property, like other debts. And if he is unable to pay it, its ruling is the same as that of other debts. All of this is the school of al-Shafi'i.

Section: The guarantee (daman) of a free person for the kitaba property is not valid. The Qadi mentioned two narrations regarding this: one of them is that his guarantee is valid, because it is a compensation in a commutative contract, so its guarantee is valid, like the price of a sold item. Our view is what we mentioned previously, and it is not valid to draw an analogy to the price, because it (the price) is binding, while this (the kitaba property) is not binding.

Section: If they pay what is due from them, or part of it, and then they disagree—the one whose value is higher says: "Each of us paid according to what was due from him, so none of us has a surplus over his companion." And the one whose value is lower says: "We paid equally, so I have a surplus over you," or "It is a deposit of mine with our master"—the statement to be accepted is that of the first, because the apparent state is that one who owes a debt does not pay more than what is due from him, so his claim is bolstered by that. If the amount paid is more than what was due from them and they disagree regarding the excess, the statement to be accepted is that of the one who claims equality, because they participated in paying it, and thus their hands were both upon it, so they are equal in it, just as if they had property in their hands and disagreed over it.