2020 - Issue; He said: "And if he dies leaving an umm al-walad, her waiting period is one menstrual cycle."

This is only so because it is incumbent upon her to clear her womb (istibra') due to her exit from the ownership of the master who was having intercourse with her, so this is achieved by one menstrual cycle, just as if her master had emancipated her during his lifetime. Al-Khiraqi named this a 'waiting period' (iddah) because clearing the womb resembles the waiting period in that it prevents marriage and serves to establish her innocence from pregnancy. We have already mentioned this issue in the [section on] waiting periods, and the disagreement regarding it, in what has passed.

2021 - Issue; He said: "And if the umm al-walad commits an offense, her master redeems her with her value or less than it."

In sum, if an umm al-walad commits an offense, the blood-money (arsh) for her crime attaches to her person, and it is upon the master to redeem her with the lesser of two things: her value or [the blood-money for her crime]. This was the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr Abd al-Aziz narrated another opinion, which is that he must redeem her with the full blood-money for her crime, regardless of how high it reaches; because he did not surrender her regarding the offense, the blood-money for her crime became binding upon him, regardless of how high it reached, like an ordinary slave. Abu Thawr and the literalists (Ahl al-Zahir) said: It is not upon him to redeem her, and her offense remains as a liability on her, to be pursued when she is emancipated; because he does not possess the right to sell her, it is not [binding] upon him to redeem her, just as in the case of a free woman. Our argument is that she is a slave girl whose earnings are his, [and] he did not surrender her, so the blood-money for her crime became binding upon him, like an ordinary slave. An amount exceeding her value is not binding upon him, because he did not refuse to surrender her; rather, the Sacred Law prevented that because she no longer remains a subject for sale or for the transfer of ownership. She differs from the ordinary slave who, if he did not surrender him, could potentially be surrendered for sale, in which case someone might pay more than his value for him; so when his owner refuses to surrender him, we impose the full blood-money upon him. In our issue, that is not possible because selling her is not permissible, so nothing more than her value is upon him.