the sale, because it is a contract of exchange in which knowledge of the attributes of the compensation is required, so that it may be known whether it stands in the place of the compensated object or not. Emancipation, however, is an act of benevolence whose validity does not depend on knowledge of the attributes of the emancipated party, and ignorance of them does not negate it; knowledge of its existence is sufficient, and that has been known. This is why it is valid to emancipate the fetus specifically, while it is not valid to sell it specifically. Furthermore, because when its exception in a sale is void, the entire sale is void, whereas here, when its exception is void, the emancipation of the slave woman does not become void; rather, the emancipation extends to the fetus. How, then, can it be valid to equate it [to the sale] when the ruling in both is contradictory? It is not valid to draw an analogy between it and some of her limbs, because it is not conceivable for a limb to be singled out for servitude or freedom separately from the whole. For this reason, if one were to emancipate a limb of his slave woman, the entire woman would become free. If he emancipates part of her, the freedom extends to the excepted part. The child, however, is a separate living being; if one were to emancipate it, the freedom would not extend to its mother, and it is valid for it to be distinct in freedom from its mother in cases where he emancipates it to the exclusion of her, in the case of the child of a woman who was deceived into thinking she was free, in the case of intercourse by mistake, in the case of the child of a mother of a child (umm al-walad), and other such cases. This is not possible with some of the limbs. Moreover, the child is inherited from and inherits, is bequeathed and is a recipient of a bequest. If killed, its blood money is inherited, and its mother does not have exclusive rights to it. Expiation is required for killing it, and the diyah (blood money) is in exchange for it, so how can it be valid to draw an analogy between it and her limbs? As for if he emancipates what is in her womb to the exclusion of her, I know of no disagreement regarding it. Ishaq ibn Mansur said: Sufyan was asked about a man who said, "What is in your womb is free." He replied, "It is free, and the mother is a slave," because her child is from her, but she is not from her child. Ahmad and Ishaq said: This is excellent.