There are two opinions for al-Shafi'i, like the two schools of thought. They argued that the kitaba contract is not binding on the part of the slave, so it does not extend to the child, like suspension [of emancipation] upon a condition. Our argument is that the kitaba is an established cause for emancipation, which it is not permissible to invalidate, so it extends to the child, like the status of istilad (umm al-walad). It differs from suspension upon a condition, for the master has the power to invalidate the latter by sale. Once this is established, the discussion regarding the child involves four issues: his value if destroyed, his earnings, his maintenance, and his emancipation. As for his value if destroyed, Abu Bakr said: It belongs to his mother, so she may use it to assist with her kitaba; because the master does not have the right to dispose of the child while he is a slave, so he does not deserve his value. Also, because he is in the position of a part of her, and if one were to commit a crime against a part of her, its compensation (arsh) would be hers; likewise, her child [follows the same rule]. Since he [the master] does not deserve it, it belongs to her mother, for the right does not exit the two of them. Furthermore, if she were to acquire him through a gift or purchase and he were then killed, his value would be hers, so the same applies when he follows her. A verification of this is that when he follows her, his legal status becomes her status; therefore, the master's ownership does not exist in his benefits, nor in the compensation for a crime committed against him, just as it does not exist for him in her [benefits or compensation]. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of his two opinions: The value belongs to her master, because if she were killed, her value would belong to her master, and thus her child is the same. The difference between the two is that the kitaba is invalidated by her killing, so her property becomes her master's, unlike her child, for the contract remains after his killing; therefore, this is analogous to the destruction of some of her limbs, and the ruling on destroying some of his limbs is like the ruling on his total destruction. As for his earnings and the compensation for crimes against him, it is also fitting that they belong to his mother, because her child is a part of her, following her, so he resembles the rest of her parts. Also, because her payment for her kitaba is a cause for his emancipation and the realization of his freedom, it is fitting that this be directed toward him, in the position of directing it toward her, since his servitude is in her incapacity, and his lost earnings are upon her. As for his maintenance, it is upon her.