Al-Shāfiʿī is reported to hold both opinions on this question.

Those who allow the mukātab to set another slave free then disagreed over to whom the right of patronage (walāʾ) belongs. Mālik said: If the mukātab dies before gaining his own freedom, the walāʾ of his slave reverts to the original master; but if he dies after he himself has been emancipated, the walāʾ belongs to him. Others maintained that in every case the walāʾ remains the master’s.

The evidence of those who disallow the mukātab’s manumission is that walāʾ is reserved for the emancipator, citing the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—who said, “Walāʾ is only for the one who sets free.” Because a mukātab possesses no walāʾ while still under contract, they deem his manumission invalid. Those who assign the walāʾ to the master reason that “the slave of one’s slave stands in the same position as one’s own slave,” and any contrary ruling rests on istiḥsān (equitable preference).

A related dispute concerns whether the mukātab may marry or travel without his master’s permission. The majority say he may not marry except with consent, though a minority permit him to marry outright. Concerning travel, most jurists allow it, while some—Mālik among them—prohibit it. Sahnūn, one of Mālik’s disciples, allows the mukātab to travel and denies the master the right to forbid it, and Ibn al-Qāsim permits short‐distance journeys.

The rationale for prohibiting marriage is the fear that it might lead to the mukātab’s default. Travel is permitted because it enables him to earn the funds needed to fulfil his contract.

In summary, the scholars hold three positions:

1. The mukātab may travel with or without his master’s leave, and any stipulation forbidding travel is invalid. This is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī.

2. He may not travel except with the master’s permission; this is Mālik’s opinion.

3. By the mere fact of the kitāba contract he may travel, unless the master expressly stipulates otherwise; this is the position of Aḥmad, al-Thawrī, and others.

They also differed on whether the mukātab may in turn draw up a kitāba contract for his own slave. Mālik allowed it so long as no favoritism is intended, and Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Thawrī agreed. Al-Shāfiʿī has two positions: one validates the contract, the other annuls it.

Those who validate argue that kitāba is a contract of exchange aimed at profit, and thus resembles other lawful transactions such as sale and purchase. The Shāfiʿīs reply that walāʾ belongs to the emancipator, while the mukātab, not yet fully free, has no walāʾ.

All agree that the master may neither seize any part of the mukātab’s property nor make use of it.

They disagreed, however, about whether the master may have intercourse with his female slave who is under kitāba. The majority prohibit it, whereas Aḥmad, Dāwūd, and the Successor Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib deem it permissible if he explicitly stipulated it. The majority’s argument is that such intercourse constitutes