the guardian of her, the guardian of her daughter, and the guardian of her slave girl altogether; because the ownership belongs to him, so they resemble a full slave girl. The dower belongs to the mukatabah, according to what we have mentioned regarding their dower if the master has intercourse with them.

1989 - Issue: He said: "If he has intercourse with her and did not stipulate a condition, he is disciplined, but he does not reach the hadd of the adulterer, and he is liable for her similar dower."

The entirety of the matter is that when the master has intercourse with his mukatabah without a condition, we have mentioned that there is no hadd upon him. However, if they were both aware of the prohibition, they are both disciplined (ta'zir). If they were both ignorant, they are both disciplined. If one of them was aware and the other ignorant, the aware one is disciplined and the ignorant one is disciplined. She does not leave the state of kitabah by the intercourse. Al-Layth said: "If she yielded to him, her kitabah is annulled, and she returns to being a full slave (qinn)." Our position is that it is a binding contract, so it is not annulled by yielding to intercourse, just like a lease or a sale after it has become binding. As for the dower, it is incumbent upon him for her, whether he forced her or she yielded to him. This is the view of al-Hasan, al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, and al-Shafi'i. Qatadah said: "It is mandatory if he forced her, and it is not mandatory if she yielded to him." Al-Muzani narrated this from al-Shafi'i, because the one who yields has offered herself without compensation, so she becomes like the adulteress. The explicit text (mansus) of al-Shafi'i is its obligation in both cases. His companions rejected what al-Muzani reported and said: "It is not recognized." Malik said: "There is nothing upon him, because she is his property." Our position is that it is a compensation for her benefit, so it is mandatory for her, just like the compensation for her body. Furthermore, the mukatabah is in possession of her own self, and her benefits belong to her; therefore, if a stranger had intercourse with her, the dower would be hers. It became mandatory in the case of yielding because the hadd was dropped for him due to the doubt of ownership, so the dower became mandatory for her, just as if he had intercourse with a woman due to a doubt of a contract while yielding. If her intercourse is repeated and he had already paid the dower for the first act of intercourse, the second also has a dower, because the payment severed the ruling of the first intercourse. If he had not paid for the first, only one dower is mandatory, because this is for the intercourse of doubt, so there was only one dower, just like intercourse in an invalid marriage.