they accepted Islam. Our position is that this is an exchange that is not obligatory to accept, so it is not forbidden to kill them, just like the exchange for idolaters.
Section: When a slave is captured, he becomes a slave to the Muslims; because he is property belonging to them that has been seized, so he belongs to the victors, like livestock. If the Imam deems it appropriate to kill him due to the harm his presence causes, it is permissible to kill him; because someone like this has no value, and he is like an apostate. As for those whose killing is forbidden besides women and children, such as an elderly man, a chronically ill person, a blind person, and a monk, it is not permissible to enslave them; because killing them is forbidden, and there is no benefit in keeping them.
Section: Abu Bakr mentioned that if a disbeliever is the mawla (client/protege) of a Muslim, it is not permissible to enslave him; because in his enslavement, there is the nullification of the wala' (clientage right) of a protected Muslim. According to his view, his offspring are also not to be enslaved if they are under such clientage, for that same reason. If the one who emancipated him is a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim), it is permissible to enslave him; because it is permissible to enslave his master, so enslaving his client is more appropriate. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is the permissibility of enslaving him; because it is permissible to kill him, and he is one of the People of the Book, so it is permissible to enslave him, like others. Furthermore, the reason for the permissibility of enslavement has been realized in his case, which is the seizing of him, along with the fact that the interest of the Muslims lies in his enslavement. Also, if the captive were a woman or a child, nothing would be permissible regarding them except enslavement, so it becomes the determined course for them. What he (Abu Bakr) mentioned is invalidated by the fact of killing; for it nullifies the wala', yet it is permissible in his case. Likewise, one who is under the clientage of a dhimmi may be enslaved. Their statement that "his master may be enslaved" is incorrect; for it is not permissible to enslave a dhimmi, nor to nullify his rights. Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "They only offered the jizya so that their blood would be like our blood, and their wealth like our wealth" (20).
1635 - Issue: He said: (The course for those of them who are enslaved, and what is taken from them upon their release, is the course of that booty).
He means whoever among them becomes a slave by the application of the status of slavery upon him, or is ransomed for wealth, he is like the rest of the booty. It is divided into fifths, then four-fifths of it is distributed among the victors. We know of no disagreement regarding this; for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
(20) See: Nasb al-Rayah 3/381.
أسْلَمُوا. ولَنا، أنَّه بَدَلٌ لا تلْزَمُ الإِجابَةُ إليه، فلم يحْرُمْ قَتْلُهم، كبَدَلِ عَبَدَةِ الأَوْثانِ.
فصل: وإذا أُسِرَ العبْدُ صارَ رقِيقًا للمسلمين؛ لأنَّه مالٌ لهم اسْتُولِىَ عليه، فكان للغانِمين، كالبَهِيمةِ، وإنْ رأَى الإِمامُ قَتْلَه لضَرَرٍ في بقائِه، جازَ قَتْلُه؛ لأنَّ مثلَ هذا لا قِيمَةَ له، فهو كالمُرْتَدِّ، وأمَّا مَنْ يحْرُمُ قَتْلُهم غيرَ النِّساءِ والصِّبْيان، كالشَّيْخِ والزَّمِنِ والأَعْمَى والرّاهِبِ، فلا يحِلُّ سَبْيُهم؛ لأنَّ قَتْلَهم حرامٌ، ولا نَفْعَ في اقْتِنائِهم.
فصل: ذَكَرَ أبو بكرٍ أنَّ الكافِرَ إذا كان مَوْلَى مُسْلمٍ، لم يَجُزْ اسْتِرْقاقُه؛ لأنَّ في اسْتِرْقاقِه تَفْويتَ ولاءِ المُسْلِم المَعْصُومِ. وعلى قولِه، لا يُسْتَرَقُّ ولدُه أيضًا إذا كان عليه ولاءٌ؛ لذلك. وإنْ كان مُعْتِقُهُ ذِمِّيًّا، جازَ اسْتِرْقاقُه؛ لأنَّ سيِّدَه يجوزُ اسْتِرْقاقُه، فاسْتِرْقاقُ مَوْلاهُ أوْلَى. وهذا مذهبُ الشافِعِىِّ. وظاهرُ كلامِ الخِرَقِىّ جوازُ استرقاقِه؛ لأنَّه يجوزُ قَتْلُه، وهو من أهلِ الكتابِ، فجازَ استرقاقُه، كغيرِه، ولأنَّ سببَ جوازِ الاسْتِرْقاقِ قد تحقَّقَ فيه، وهو الاسْتِيلاءُ عليه، مع كونِ مَصْلحةِ المسلمين في اسْتِرْقاقِه، ولأنَّه إنْ كان المَسْبِىُّ امرأةً أو صَبِيًّا، لم يجُزْ فيه سِوَى الاسْتِرْقاقِ، فيتعيَّنُ ذلك فيه. وما ذكرَه يَبْطُل بالقَتْلِ؛ فإنَّه يُفَوِّتُ الولاءَ، وهو جائِزٌ فيه، وكذلك مَنْ عليه ولاءٌ لذِمِّىٍّ يجوزُ استرقاقُه. وقولُهم: إنَّ سيِّدَه يجوزُ استرقاقُه. غيرُ صحيحٍ؛ فإنَّ الذِّمِّىَّ لا يجوزُ اسْتِرْقاقُه، ولا تَفْوِيتُ حُقوقِه، وقد قال علىٌّ، رَضِىَ اللَّه عنه: إنَّما بذلُوا الجِزْيَةَ لتكونَ دماؤُهم كدِمائِنا، وأموالُهم كأمْوالِنا (٢٠).
١٦٣٥ - مسألة؛ قال: (وسَبِيلُ مَن اسْتُرِقَّ مِنْهُمْ، وَمَا أُخِذَ مِنْهُمْ عَلَى إطْلَاقِهِمْ، سَبِيلُ تِلْكَ الْغَنِيمَةِ)
يعني مَن صارَ منهم رقيقًا بضَرْبِ الرِّقِّ عليه، أو فُودِىَ بمالٍ، فهو كسائرِ الغنيمَةِ، يُخَمَّسُ ثم يُقْسَمُ أربعةُ أخْماسِه بين الغانِمين. لا نعلمُ في هذا خلافًا، فإنَّ النَّبِىَّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم-
(٢٠) انظر: نصب الراية ٣/ ٣٨١.
