This is the choice of al-Muzani, because her emancipation is suspended upon a condition that is established by the word of the emancipator alone, so it is similar to one whose emancipation is suspended upon entering the house. Jabir ibn Zayd said: It is only in the status of a garden wall that you bequeathed as charity upon your death; its fruit is yours as long as you live. Also, because tadbir is a bequest (wasiyya), and the child of the person bequeathed before death belongs to the master. As for us, we have what was narrated from Umar, Ibn Umar, and Jabir, that they said: The child of the mudabbarah is in the same status as she is. We do not know of any dissenter among the Companions regarding this, so it constitutes a consensus. Also, because the mother gained the right to freedom upon the death of her master, so her child follows her, like the umm al-walad (mother of a child slave). This differs from suspension upon a condition during life and from a bequest in the respect that tadbir is more emphatic than each of them; for it combines both matters, and what has two causes is more emphatic than that which has only one. Likewise, it is not annulled by death or by retraction. Thus, if the tadbir is annulled regarding the mother due to a reason specific to her—such as sale, death, or retraction—it is not annulled regarding her child, and he becomes free upon the death of her master, just as if his mother remained under the tadbir. If the third [of the estate] is not sufficient for both of them together, lots are drawn between them; whichever the lot falls upon, he becomes free if the third can bear it, otherwise, he is freed to the extent of the third. If anything remains of the third after his emancipation, it is completed from the other, just as if one had performed tadbir for a slave and a slave woman together. As for the child who was present before the tadbir, we know of no disagreement that he does not follow her; for he does not follow her in absolute emancipation, nor in the ruling of istilad (procreation), nor in kitaba (contracted manumission), so it is even more appropriate that he does not follow in tadbir. Al-Maymuni said: I said to Ahmad: Does the child of the mudabbarah that existed before she was made a mudabbar follow her? He said: Her child that existed before that does not follow her; rather, what follows her is what was after she was made a mudabbar. Hanbal said: I heard my uncle say regarding a man who performs tadbir for a slave woman who has a child, he said: Her child is with her. Abu al-Khattab considered this a narration, that her child before the tadbir follows her. This is far-fetched, and the apparent meaning is that Ahmad did not intend that her child before the tadbir is with her, but rather he meant her child after the tadbir, as he stated clearly in a narration other than this. For her existing child does not follow her in emancipation, nor in kitaba, nor in istilad, nor in sale, nor in gift, nor in pledge, nor in anything from the causes that transfer ownership of the person.