1977 - Issue: He said: "And if the mudabbar kills his master, his tadbir is invalidated."

His tadbir is only invalidated by his killing of his master for two meanings: One of them is that he intended to hasten the emancipation through the forbidden act of killing, so he was punished by the contradiction of his intention, which is the invalidation of the tadbir, like the prevention of inheritance by killing the legator; and because emancipation is a benefit attained at death, so it is negated by killing, like inheritance and bequests. The second is that the tadbir is a bequest, so it is invalidated by killing, like a bequest of property. This does not necessitate the emancipation of the umm al-walad (mother of a child) because her status is more confirmed; for through the bearing of a child (istilad), she has reached a state where it is impossible to transfer ownership in her under any circumstances. Therefore, it is not permissible to sell her, give her, pledge her, or retract this through speech or otherwise. Inheritance is a type of transfer; so if she were not to be emancipated [at the death of her master], the ownership in her would transfer to the heir, and there is no way for that. This is unlike the mudabbar. Also, because the cause of the umm al-walad’s freedom is the act and the partiality (ba'diyyah) that occurred between her and her master by means of her child, and this is more confirmed than speech. For this reason, the istilad of a mentally incapacitated person is valid, while his act of emancipation or tadbir does not take effect; the ruling of the insolvent person's istilad extends to the share of his partner, unlike emancipation; she is emancipated from the capital, while tadbir only takes effect in the third; and the creditors do not have the power to invalidate her emancipation even if her master is bankrupt, unlike the mudabbar. The ruling in one situation does not necessitate the confirmation of the ruling in what is less than it, just as it did not necessitate equating it to it in these situations in which they differ. Once this is established, there is no difference between whether the killing was intentional or accidental, just as there is no difference between them regarding the deprivation of inheritance and the invalidation of the killer’s bequest.

Section: As for his other crimes, other than killing his master, they do not invalidate his tadbir. However, if it is a crime requiring payment of property or requiring qisas (retaliation), and the guardian (wali) pardons it in exchange for property, the property attaches to his person. Whoever permits selling him gives his master the choice between surrendering him, so that he is sold for the crime, or ransoming him. If he surrenders him for the crime and he is sold for it, his tadbir is invalidated. If he returns to his master, his tadbir returns. If he chooses to ransom him, and he ransoms him with that with which a slave is ransomed, he remains a mudabbar as he was. Whoever does not permit selling him deems it necessary for his master to ransom him, like the umm al-walad. If the crime requires qisas, and qisas is exacted from him upon his person, his tadbir is invalidated. If qisas is exacted from him...