Section: Abu al-Khattab said: Is he liable for the value of the child [and the dower of the slave-woman]? There are two views: One of them is that he is not liable for that. This is the apparent view of al-Khiraqi, because he did not mention them, as the slave-woman became his property, so he is not liable for the dower of his own property, nor for the value of her child. Also, the child was created free, so his free child is not appraised against him. The second view is that he is liable to his partner for half of her proper dower and half the value of her child, because the act of intercourse encroached upon another person's property. Since she transferred ownership through the act of intercourse that necessitates the dower, the act of intercourse is [the cause of ownership]. The ruling does not become established until its cause is complete, and thus the precedence of the act of intercourse over his ownership is necessitated, meaning it occurred while in the ownership of another; therefore, it necessitates the proper dower. His action prevented the creation of the child upon the partner's ownership, so he is liable for half its value, just like the child of a deceived person (al-maghrur). The judge (al-Qadi) said: If she delivers the child after the appraisal, then there is nothing against the one who had intercourse, because she delivered it into his ownership, and the time of the obligation is the time of delivery; there is no right for the partner in her or her child. If she delivers it before the appraisal, is he liable for the value of half of it? There are two narrations, mentioned by Abu Bakr, and he chose the view that he is liable for its value.

Section: There is no difference between whether he possesses a large or a small share in the slave-woman. Al-Khiraqi mentioned that if one has intercourse with a slave-woman from the spoils of war, she becomes an Umm Walad if he makes her pregnant, even if he only has a small share in her out of more than a thousand shares.

1956 - Issue: He said: (And if he comes to possess a share of someone who would become free upon his ownership by means other than inheritance, and he is wealthy, the whole of the person becomes free through him, and his partner is entitled to the value of his share from him. If he is insolvent, only the portion he came to possess becomes free through him. And if he comes to possess a part of him by inheritance, only the amount he possessed becomes free, whether he is wealthy or insolvent.)