The wage for that period is obligatory upon him, because he caused the loss of his benefit, which is property for which it is permissible to take compensation, so it is guaranteed through usurpation, like the services of a slave. The second view is that it is not obligatory, because it is subordinate to that which is not valid to usurp, so it is like his clothes when they wear out while on him, or his limbs. Furthermore, it perished while under his possession, so no liability for it is incurred, as we have mentioned. If he prevents him from working without detaining him, he is not liable for his benefits, according to one view, because if he were to do that with a slave, he would not be liable for his benefits, so a free person is more entitled to this rule. If he detains a free person while he is wearing clothes, he is not liable for them, because they are subordinate to that over which control was not established in usurpation, regardless of whether he is an adult or a child. This is entirely the position of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i (37).

Section: An umm al-walad (a slave woman who has borne her master a child) is guaranteed through usurpation. This is the position of al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. Abu Hanifah said: She is not guaranteed, because an umm al-walad does not function as property, evidenced by the fact that the rights of creditors do not attach to her, so she is like a free person. Our argument is that whatever is guaranteed through its value is guaranteed through usurpation, like a regular slave (qinn), and because she is owned, so she is like a mudabbarah (a slave promised freedom after the master's death), and she differs (38) from a free woman, for she is not owned and is not guaranteed through value.

Section: If one opens a cage for a bird and it flies away, or unties a beast (40) and it leaves, he is liable for them. This is the position of Malik. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i said: There is no liability upon him, unless he startled them until they left (41). The companions of al-Shafi'i said: If they stood still after the opening and untying, then left, he is not liable for them. If they left immediately after that, there are two views. They argued (42) that they have volition, and direct action (mubasharah) occurred from them, while the opener provided a non-compelling cause. When these two combine, the liability does not attach