Some scholars held that the masters are the ones addressed by this verse, while others maintained that the addressees are the Muslim community as a whole, who have been encouraged to assist slaves under mukātabah. Those who adopted the latter view disagreed among themselves: is such assistance obligatory or merely recommended? They also differed over the amount that must be given. Some said: “Anything, however small, that can still be called ‘something’,” whereas others sought to specify a definite sum.

As for the mukātab slave himself, several subsidiary questions arise.

First: Is it permissible to initiate mukātabah with an adolescent? May more than one slave be included in a single contract? May someone who owns only a share of a slave arrange mukātabah for his portion without the consent of his partner? May one who is unable to earn be placed under mukātabah? And may a person in whom a residue of servitude still remains be placed under mukātabah?

Regarding an adolescent who is physically capable of earning but has not yet reached puberty, Abū Ḥanīfah allowed the contract; al-Shāfiʿī forbade it unless the slave has reached legal majority; and both opinions are reported from Mālik.

Those who require puberty base their condition on analogy with all other contracts. Those who do not require it argue that between master and slave things are permissible that are not allowed between unrelated parties, and that the primary aim of mukātabah is the slave’s ability to earn—an ability that may well be found in one who is still a minor.

As for including more than one slave in a single contract, the jurists differed. If we allow such combination, another question follows: do they become mutual guarantors by the very contract so that none of them is freed until all are freed? On this, too, there is disagreement.

With respect to combining several slaves in one contract, the majority consider it permissible; some forbid it, and that prohibition is one of al-Shāfiʿī’s two opinions.

Concerning their becoming guarantors for one another, those who allow combination hold three views. One group maintains that such mutual guarantee is obligatory by the contract itself; this is the position of Mālik and Sufyān. Another group says it is not binding merely by the contract but only if expressly stipulated; this is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions. Al-Shāfiʿī, however, contends that it is invalid—whether stipulated or not—and that each slave is emancipated once he has paid his own share.

The main argument for those who forbid this joint liability is the presence of gharar, for the exact amount that will ultimately fall on each individual is unknown. Those who permit it respond that a small degree of gharar is overlooked in mukātabah, since it takes place between a master and his slave, and the slave together with his property already belongs to the master. Mālik’s reasoning is that, because the contract is a single one, their ruling must be like that of a single person.

The Shāfiʿīs argue that one slave guaranteeing another is no different from a stranger acting as guarantor. Hence, whoever regards the guarantorship of strangers in mukātabah as invalid will likewise deem it invalid here. They prohibited such guarantorship because, if the mukātab becomes unable to pay, the guarantor has nothing from which to recover his outlay. This reasoning, however, does not clearly apply to slaves guaranteeing one another. What does appear is that this stipulation causes a slave who is able to earn to be hindered by the incapacity of one who cannot, and this constitutes a form of gharar peculiar to mukātabah—unless it is further said that combining them becomes a cause