If he does not choose to take him, his tadbir is annulled. Whenever he returns to his master by any means, his tadbir returns. If he does not return to his master, his tadbir is annulled, as if he were sold, and he remains a slave for the one in whose possession he is. If his master dies before he is captured, he becomes free. If he is captured [after this], he is not returned to the heirs of his master, because his master's ownership ceased upon his emancipation, so he becomes like the free people of the Abode of War. However, he is asked to repent; if he repents and accepts Islam, he becomes a slave to be divided among the victors. If he does not repent, he is killed, and his enslavement is not permissible because it is not permitted to allow him to persist in his disbelief. The Qadi said: It is not permissible to enslave him if he accepts Islam. This is also the position of al-Shafi'i, because in his enslavement there is an annulment of the wala' (clientage) of the Muslim who emancipated him. We argue that this does not prevent his killing or the forfeiture of his life and his wala', so it is even more fitting that it does not prevent his possession. Furthermore, the slave whom his master did not emancipate remains property for the victors if his specific owner is not known, and it is established if he is divided before his owner is identified; and ownership is more firmly established than wala', so it is even more fitting that it should be established alongside the wala' alone. Thus, if the mudabbar were a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim subject), and he fled to the Abode of War, then his master died or emancipated him, then the Muslims overcame him and captured him, they would own him and divide him. According to the position of the Qadi and the school of al-Shafi'i, they do not own him. If his master was a dhimmi, his enslavement is permissible according to the Qadi. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two opinions regarding his enslavement; one of which is that it is permissible. This is an argument against them, because the sanctity of the dhimmi's property is like the sanctity of the Muslim's property, as evidenced by the punishment of his thief, whether he is a Muslim or a dhimmi, the necessity of his compensation, and the prohibition of owning his property if the infidels take it, then the Muslims overcome it, and his owner reaches it before the division. The Qadi said: The difference between them is that his master here, if he fled to the Abode of War, it would be permissible to own him, so it is permissible to own his emancipation, unlike the Muslim. We reply: The enslavement of his master was only permitted due to the cessation of his sanctity and the departure of his protector, which is his dhimma (covenant of protection) and pledge. As for when his mudabbar apostatizes, the sanctity of his wala' is established through the sanctity of the one who holds his wala', and he and the Muslim are equal in that; therefore, if it is permissible to annul the wala' of one of them, it is likewise permissible for the other.

Section: If the master of the mudabbar apostatizes, the Qadi mentioned that the established position is that it is suspended; if he returns to Islam, the tadbir remains as it was, because it becomes clear that his ownership did not cease. If he is killed or dies in his apostasy, the mudabbar does not become free, because it becomes clear that his ownership ceased upon his apostasy. Abu Bakr said: The analogy of Abu Abd Allah’s position is that his tadbir is annulled by apostasy, and if he returns to Islam, he resumes the tadbir. Al-Shafi'i said: The tadbir remains, and he becomes free upon the death of his master, because his tadbir preceded his apostasy, so he is like his sale or gift before his apostasy. This rests upon the opinion regarding the property of the apostate: is it still under his ownership, or did it cease upon his apostasy? This has already been mentioned in the chapter on the apostate. As for if he performs tadbir during his apostasy, his tadbir is held in abeyance; if he returns to Islam, it becomes clear that his tadbir was valid, and if he is killed or dies in his apostasy, it becomes clear that it was invalid and the mudabbar does not become free. Ibn Abi Musa said: His tadbir is invalid. This is also the position of Abu Bakr, because [ownership in his view] ceases upon apostasy, and if he accepts Islam, it is returned to him as a new ownership.

1972 - Issue; He said: (And whatever the mudabbarah slave woman gives birth to after her tadbir, her child is in the same status as she is).

In summary, the child born of the mudabbarah after her tadbir is in one of two states; first, that he is present at the time of her tadbir, and this is known if she brings him forth in less than six months from the time of tadbir. This one enters into the tadbir with her, without any disagreement known to us, because he is in the status of a limb of her limbs. If the tadbir is annulled regarding the mother due to a sale, death, or verbal retraction, it is not annulled regarding the child, because it was established in him inherently. The second state is that she becomes pregnant with him after the tadbir; this one follows his mother in the tadbir, and his ruling is like her ruling regarding emancipation upon the death of her master, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. This was narrated from Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Umar. This is also the view of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, al-Qasim, Mujahid, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, and the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). The Qadi mentioned that Hanbal transmitted from Ahmad that the child of the mudabbarah is a slave if the master does not stipulate [otherwise]. He said: The literal meaning of this is that he does not follow her, and he does not become free upon the death of his master. This is the opinion of Jabir ibn Zayd and 'Ata'. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions, like the two schools of thought; one of which is that he does not follow her.