after that, does she become an umm walad? There are two opinions regarding this. Our position is that it is an act of intercourse by which lineage is attached due to the legal ambiguity (shubha) of ownership, so she becomes an umm walad by it, similar to having intercourse with the slave girl of one's son. What they mentioned is invalidated by the case of the slave girl of the son, and we do not concede to what they have stated, for we have already clarified that ownership is established in the spoils merely by taking them as booty. The value of the slave girl is to be thrown into the spoils (al-maghnam) because he has caused them to lose her and has removed her from the spoils by his action, so her value becomes binding upon him, just as if he had killed her; if he is insolvent, her value remains as a liability upon him. The Qadi said: If he is insolvent, the amount of his share of the spoils is calculated, and she becomes an umm walad, while the remainder of her remains a slave for the participants in the spoils; this is because her status as an umm walad is only established through extension (siraya) into the property of another, and it does not extend regarding the insolvent person, similar to manumission (itq). Our position is that it is an act of declaring a child (istilad) that has rendered some of her an umm walad, so it renders all of her an umm walad, like the declaration of a child from the slave girl of one's son. It differs from manumission because the declaration of a child is stronger due to it being an act, and it takes effect from the insane person. As for the value of the child, Abu Bakr said: There are two narrations concerning it. One is that his value at the time of his birth is binding upon him and is to be thrown into the spoils, because he caused the loss of his servitude, so he is like the child of a person who is deceived (al-maghrur). The second is that it is not binding upon him because he owned her at the time of the conception, and the ownership of the participants in the spoils was never established in the child under any circumstance; thus, he is like the child of a father from the slave girl of his son when he has had intercourse with her, and because he is free at the time of his conception and has no value at that moment. The Qadi said: When half of her becomes an umm walad, the entire child is free, and he is liable for the value of half of him.

Section: If there is someone among the spoils who would be manumitted for one of the participants in the spoils, you must examine: if it is a man, he is not manumitted, because al-Abbas, the paternal uncle of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and Ali’s uncle, and Aqil, the brother of Ali, were among the captives of Badr, yet they were not manumitted upon them. Furthermore, a man does not become a slave merely by capture. If he is enslaved, or if the captive is a woman or a child, he is manumitted for the value of his share, and it extends to the remainder if he is solvent, but if he is insolvent, he is not manumitted for anything except his ownership of him. Al-Shafi'i said: Nothing is manumitted of him. This is the implication of Abu Hanifah’s opinion, because he does not own him merely by taking him as booty. If he were to own him, his ownership would not be determined in him, and if he divides him...