the concept understood from this is his acceptance of what was asked. If the Imam says: "I did not intend to accept his request," he is not forced to abandon his prisoner, and he is returned to his place of safety. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: The prisoner is released, but the polytheist woman is not released, because a Muslim is free and it is not permissible for him to be [the price of a slave girl]. It is said to him: "If you choose to purchase her, bring her price." Our position is that this is understood to contain a condition, so fulfilling it is mandatory, just as if he had stated it explicitly; and because the disbeliever understood that from him and acted upon it, so it resembles the case where he understood security from a gesture. Regarding their saying: "A free person cannot be the price of a slave girl," we say: But it is valid to ransom with her. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ransomed two Muslim men with the captive woman he had taken from Salamah ibn al-Akwa', and he ransomed two Muslim men for a prisoner from the disbelievers. He fulfilled for them by returning the one who came to him as a Muslim, saying: "It does not befit our religion to commit treachery." Even if returning the Muslim to them is not a right they possess, he has committed himself to her release, so it is binding upon him because of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying: "Muslims are bound by their conditions," and his saying: "It does not befit our religion to commit treachery."

1685 - Issue; He said: (And whoever steals from the spoils of war, among those who have a right to it, or for his child, or for his master, shall not have his hand cut off.)

This means if the thief is one of the participants in the spoils, or his father, or his master, then there is no cutting off of the hand for him because he has a shubha (legal ambiguity), which is his right attached to it, so that becomes a barrier to cutting off his hand, for hudud (prescribed punishments) are averted by doubts. It resembles the case if he stole from wealth shared between him and another. The same applies if it belongs to his son or those further down the line of descent. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah added: If one of his unmarriageable kin (dhi rahim mahram) has a right to it, he shall not be cut off. This is based on the principle that one is not cut off for stealing their wealth. The discussion on this has already passed.