The usurper [is liable] for the damage [caused] while in his possession, like the fee for the object. The most appropriate view, God willing, is that he is liable for one-tenth of the value of its mother; for this is what he is liable for regarding it in the case of injury, so he is liable for it in the case of loss, just as with [other] parts. If she delivers it alive, it becomes guaranteed while in the possession of the usurper, like the mother. If it dies after that, he is liable for its value. If the mother is diminished by the childbirth, he is liable for that decrease, and it is not compensated for by the child. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: Its decrease is compensated for by its child. Our view is that her child is the property of the one from whom it was usurped, so no decrease occurring by the injury of the usurper can be compensated for by it, just like the decrease occurring by [anything] other than childbirth. If the usurper strikes her abdomen and she casts the fetus dead, he is liable for one-tenth of the value of its mother. If a third party strikes her abdomen, there is the same [liability] for it, and the owner has the choice to hold either of them liable. If he holds the usurper liable, he may turn to the striker for restitution, but if he holds the striker liable, he may not turn to anyone, because the destruction originated from him, so the liability is established upon him. If the slave woman dies, he is liable for her value at the highest [level] it ever reached. This includes the indemnity for her virginity and the decrease caused by her childbirth, but it does not include liability for her child or the dowry of her peer. All of these rulings apply equally to cases of coercion or willingness, because these are rights of her master, so they do not lapse by her willingness. As for the rights of God the Almighty, such as the prescribed penalty [Hadd] upon her, the sin, and the discretionary punishment [Ta'zir] in a place where it is required, if she was willing regarding the intercourse and was aware of the prohibition, then the penalty is required of her if she is a person subject to it, as well as the sin; otherwise, it is not.

Section: If the usurper was ignorant of the prohibition of that, because of how recently he had converted to Islam, or because he was raised in a remote desert where such a thing is unknown, so he believed the intercourse to be lawful, or he believed that she was his slave woman and took her, then it became clear that she was not his, then no penalty is required of him, because the penalty is averted by doubts, and he owes the dowry and the indemnity for her virginity. If she becomes pregnant, the child is free, because of his belief that she was his property, and the lineage is established to him.