that there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding this. The argument for the first [position] (33) is that seizing is a cause for ownership, and thus it is established before possession [moves] to the [Abode of Disbelief], just like the seizure by the Muslims of the disbelievers' property, and because whatever is a cause for ownership establishes it wherever it is found, like gifting and sale. The benefit of the disagreement regarding the establishment of ownership and its lack thereof is that whoever establishes ownership for the disbelievers over the Muslims' property permits the Muslims, upon appearing over it, to distribute it and dispose of it as long as they do not know its owner, and that if the disbeliever embraces Islam while it is in his hand, he is more entitled to it. Whoever does not establish ownership, his school of thought necessitates the opposite of that. And Allah knows best.

Section: I do not know of any disagreement that if a belligerent (harbi) disbeliever embraces Islam or enters among us (34) under a security covenant (aman), after having seized the property of a Muslim and destroyed it, he is not liable for it. If he embraces Islam while it is in his possession, it is his, without any disagreement in the school of thought, due to the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever embraces Islam while in possession of something, it belongs to him" (35). If he obtained it from the one it was seized from via a gift, theft, or purchase, it is the same; because he seized it during his state of disbelief, so it resembles the case where he (36) seized it (37) by forcing it from the Muslim. From Ahmad, there is [a report] that its owner is more entitled to it by paying its value. If he seized a slave woman of a Muslim and she bore him a child, then he embraced Islam, she belongs to him and she is his umm al-walad (mother of his child). Ahmad explicitly stated this; because she is property, she resembles other types of property. If the Muslims took her and her children as booty before the Islam of the one who captured her, and her owner became known, she is returned to him, and her children are booty; because they are the children of a disbeliever who came into existence after the disbeliever's ownership of her.

Section: If they seize a free person, they do not own him, whether he is a Muslim or a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim). I know of no disagreement in this; because he is not guaranteed by value, and ownership (yad) cannot be established over him in any way. Everything that is guaranteed by value, they own by force, such as movable goods, a slave, a mudabbar (a slave granted freedom after the master's death), a mukatab (a slave in a contract for manumission), and an umm al-walad. Abu Hanifah said: They do not own a mukatab or an umm al-walad; because it is not permissible to transfer ownership in them, so they are like a free person. Our [school's] argument is that they are guaranteed by value, so they own them, like a full slave. It is possible that they own a mukatab and not...