in some eras (25), it would be permissible in all of them. The opinion of one who agrees (26) during the time of consensus is better than his opinion during the disagreement afterwards; thus, the consensus serves as an argument against the one who disagrees with it among them, just as it is an argument against others. If it is said: If the agreement in some eras (25) were a consensus, then disagreeing with it would be forbidden, so how could those Imams—whom it is not permissible to attribute to committing a sin—disagree with it? We respond: Consensus is divided into that which is definitive and that which is speculative, and this is among the speculative ones. Therefore, it is possible for them to disagree with it while it still remains an argument, just as they disagreed with speculative texts without their disagreement (28) causing those texts to lose their status as an argument; thus it is here. As for the statement of Jabir: "We used to sell mothers of children during the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Abu Bakr." It does not explicitly state that it was with the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) nor with the knowledge of Abu Bakr. Therefore, it may have occurred as their individual action, in which case there is no argument in it. It is necessary to interpret the matter this way because if it had occurred with the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Abu Bakr, and they had approved of it, it would not have been permissible to disagree with it, and the Companions after them would not have reached a consensus to disagree with their two actions. If they had done that, it would not have been devoid of someone objecting to them and saying: "How can you oppose the action of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the action of his companion? How can you abandon their Sunnah and forbid what they permitted (30)?" Furthermore, if it had occurred with their knowledge, Ali would have used it as an argument when he saw the sale of them, as would everyone who agreed with him on the lawfulness of selling them. Since none of this transpired, it is necessary to interpret the matter as we have, and thus there is no argument in it (29). It is also possible that they sold the mothers of children in marriage, not in ownership.

Section: As for the one who permits the sale of an umm al-walad, according to his opinion, if he does not sell her until he dies, and he has no heir except her child, she is freed upon his death. If he has an heir other than her child, she is calculated from the share of her child,