due to the place of doubt. If she delivers it dead, he is not liable for it, because he did not know of its life, and because he did not stand between it and its master; rather, its valuation was required [only] due to the obstruction. If she delivers it alive, he is liable for its value on the day of its separation, because he caused the loss of its slave status by his belief, and it is impossible to evaluate it while it is a fetus, so it is evaluated against him at the first moment of its separation, as that is the first moment it is possible to evaluate it, and because that is the time of the obstruction between it and its master. If the usurper strikes her abdomen and she casts the fetus dead, he is liable for the ghurra (indemnity) of a male or female slave, the value of which is five camels, inherited from it, and the striker does not inherit anything from it; because he destroyed a free fetus. Furthermore, he owes the master one-tenth of the value of its mother; because when the miscarriage followed the strike, the apparent cause is its occurrence by that [strike], and his liability to the master is the liability of slaves, and this is why if she had delivered it alive, we would have evaluated it as a slave. If the striker was a third party, he is liable for the ghurra of the diyah (blood money) of a free fetus, because it is adjudged to be free, and it is inherited from it, and the usurper owes the master one-tenth of the value of its mother, because he is liable for it with the liability of slaves, and he has caused the loss of its slave status to the master, and the destruction occurred while in his possession. The ruling regarding the dowry, the indemnity, the fee, the decrease from childbirth, and its value [if it perished] is what has passed [in the discussion] if they were both aware; because these are rights of human beings, so they do not lapse due to ignorance or error, like blood money.

866 - Issue: He said: "If the usurper sold her, and the buyer had intercourse with her and caused her to become pregnant while he was unaware, the slave woman shall be returned to her master, [the buyer] owes her mahr mithl (dowry of a peer), he redeems her children with their equivalent, and they are free, and he [the buyer] turns to the usurper for all of that."

The sum of this is that when the usurper sells the slave woman, his sale is invalid, because he is selling the property of another without his permission. There is another report that it is valid and contingent upon the owner's authorization; we have already mentioned that in [the section on] Sale. There is a third report that the sale is valid and takes effect, because in outward appearance, the period of usurpation lasts for a long time, and if the usurper's disposal were not valid, it would lead to harm for the owner and the buyer, because the owner would not possess its price and the buyer would not possess it. The derivation is based on the first report, and the ruling regarding the buyer's intercourse is the same as the ruling regarding the usurper's intercourse, except that if the buyer claims ignorance, it is accepted from him, unlike...