returns to being enslaved; because the contract becomes void upon her death, so its ruling does not remain regarding him. We have already mentioned a disagreement on this previously. If the master emancipates the umm walad or the mudabbara, her child is not emancipated, because she was emancipated by a cause other than that by which he followed her, and his emancipation remains suspended upon the death of his master. Likewise, if he emancipates their child, they are not emancipated by his emancipation. If he emancipates the mukataba, Ahmad, Sufyan, and Ishaq said: When the mukataba fulfills her contract or is emancipated, her child is emancipated, whereas when the umm walad and the mudabbara are emancipated, their child is not emancipated until the master dies. The apparent meaning of this is that the child of the mukataba follows her in emancipation upon the emancipation of her by her master; because he is within the ruling of her wealth, [the master] is entitled to his earnings, so he follows her when he emancipates her just like her wealth. Also, because her emancipation prevents her performance [of the contract] for a reason stemming from the master, so it is similar to the case where he absolves her from the wealth of the kitaba (contractual debt).

Section: As for the child of an umm walad before her istilad, the child of a mudabbara before her tadbir, and [the child of] a mukataba before her kitaba, he does not follow her, due to his existence before the establishment of the cause in her, and the cessation of the ruling of subordination for him before the realization of the cause in his mother. For this reason, he does not follow her in immediate emancipation, so [it is] more appropriate that he does not follow her in [a conditional] cause. Abu al-Khattab mentioned two reports regarding the child of a mudabbara before the tadbir, and one might extrapolate the same here, but that is far-fetched; because a child who has been separated [from the mother] does not follow her in emancipation, sale, gift, pledge, or any of the rulings, except for Islam, provided he is a minor. So how could he follow her in tadbir! Furthermore, there is no text regarding it, nor does analogy necessitate it, so he remains in his [original] state.

2017 - Issue; He said: (And when the umm walad of a Christian woman converts to Islam, he is prevented from having intercourse with her and enjoying her, and he is compelled to provide for her. If he converts to Islam, she becomes lawful for him, and if he dies before that, she is emancipated.)

The sum of this is that it is valid for a disbeliever to establish istilad of his slave girl, just as it is valid for him to emancipate her. If a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) establishes istilad of his slave girl, then she converts to Islam, she is not emancipated immediately. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Malik said: She is emancipated, for there is no way to sell her, nor to confirm his ownership over her; because it contains the affirmation of a disbeliever's ownership over a Muslim woman, which is not permitted, just like an ordinary slave girl. From Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) there is another report that she is to be asked to work for her freedom (istis'a), and if she fulfills [the payment], she is emancipated. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa; because it combines two rights: her right that a disbeliever's ownership should not remain over her, and his right to obtain compensation for his ownership, so it is similar to selling her if she were not an umm walad. Our argument is that it is an instance of Islam occurring upon [pre-existing] ownership, so it does not necessitate emancipation or labor for freedom, like an ordinary slave. What they mentioned is mere wisdom whose consideration has not been established by the Lawgiver, and it is countered by harm; for in her free emancipation is harm to the owner by removing his property without compensation, and in the istis'a is compelling her to earn without her consent and wasting his right; because it involves shifting [the matter] to an earnings-based labor, and we do not know if anything will be obtained from it or not. If it were obtained, the apparent [state] is that it would be meager, at scattered times, and its existence is close to non-existence. The truth is that the ownership remains as it was, he is prevented from intercourse with her and enjoying her, so that he does not have intercourse with her or degrade her while he is a polytheist, he is kept away from her, he is prevented from being alone with her, so as not to lead to forbidden intercourse, and he is compelled to provide fully for her maintenance; because she is his property, and he is prevented from having intercourse with her through no sin of hers, so she is like a menstruating or sick woman. She is to be delivered to a trustworthy woman to stay with her in order to protect her and attend to her affairs. If she requires wages or rent, it is upon her master. Al-Qadi mentioned that her maintenance is from her earnings, and what remains of her earnings belongs to her master. If he is unable to provide for her maintenance, is the master obligated to fulfill her maintenance? There are two reports [on this]. The school of al-Shafi'i is similar to this. The correct [view] is that her maintenance is upon her master, and her earnings belong to him, he does with it as he wishes and he is obligated to provide her maintenance [in full, whether she has earnings or not; because she is property belonging to him, and no contract occurred between them that voids her maintenance], and he does not own her earnings through it, so she is like his ordinary slave girl, or as she was before her Islam. Furthermore, ownership is a cause for these two rulings, and the event occurring from them is not suitable as an impediment; because istilad does not prevent them, evidenced by [the state] before her Islam, and Islam does not prevent them, evidenced by if it had occurred before her childbirth. Their combination does not prevent [them], because there is no text regarding it, nor is it in the meaning of what is expressed by text. And because if her maintenance were not required of him, and she had no earnings, it would lead to her ruin and loss. And because he owns the surplus of her earnings, he is therefore obligated for the surplus of her maintenance, like the rest of his slaves.