the mortgage would become the property of the master, because it is part of the property of the mukatab (the slave under a manumission contract). Abu Hanifa said: It is permissible. Our view is that it is a security from which the right cannot be fulfilled, so it is not valid, like the guarantee of wine. It is not permissible to take a mortgage for the compensation of a competition, because it is a fee (ju'lah), and it is not known that it will lead to an obligation, because the obligation is only established by the victory of the non-outfitter, and this is neither known nor conjectured. Some of our companions said: There are two views regarding it, is it a lease (ijarah) or a fee (ju'alah)? If we say it is a lease, it is permissible to take a mortgage for its compensation. The Qadi said: If there is no "muhallil" (a third party participant) in it, it is a ju'alah, and if there is a muhallil, there are two views. All of this is far-fetched, because the fee is not in exchange for the work, evidenced by the fact that he does not deserve it if he is beaten, even though he has performed the work; rather, it is compensation for winning, and capacity for it is not known. Furthermore, there is no benefit for the party setting the fee in it, nor is it intended by him. If it is not a lease in the absence of a muhallil, then it is even less so with his presence, because the one entitled to the fee is the winner, who is not specified, and it is not permissible to hire a non-specified person. Moreover, if it were a lease, its compensation would not be obligatory at the time, and its outcome towards obligation is neither known nor conjectured, so it is not permissible to take a mortgage for it, like the fee for returning a runaway slave or finding lost property. It is not permissible to take a mortgage for compensation that is not established in the liability, such as specified price, specified wages in a lease, or the subject matter in a lease when it is specific benefits, such as the lease of a house, a specific slave, or a specific camel for a known duration, or for carrying a specific item to a known place; because this is a right attached to the specific entity (ayn), not to the liability, and it cannot be fulfilled from the mortgage, because the benefit of the entity cannot be fulfilled from something else, and the lease is voided by the destruction of the entity. If the lease is for a benefit in the liability, such as sewing a garment or building a house, it is permissible to take a mortgage for it, because it is established in the liability, and it can be fulfilled from the mortgage by hiring someone with its price to perform that work, so it is permissible to take a mortgage for it, like a debt. The school of al-Shafi'i is the same as we have stated regarding all of this.