slavery, so it remains upon the original status. Moreover, prohibited intercourse should not be a cause for ownership, which is a grace and an honor, for it leads to the indulgence in forbidden acts. Our argument is that she became pregnant by him with a free child due to the [ambiguity of] ownership, so she became an umm al-walad for him, like a jointly owned slave girl; it differs from the intercourse of a stranger in this regard. Once this is established, he is not liable for her mahr (dowry) [nor for her value. Abu Hanifah said: He is not liable for her mahr,] but he is liable for her value, because he removed her from her master's ownership through a forbidden act, making it analogous to if he had killed her. He is not liable for her mahr because, if he guarantees her value, the value of the intercourse (bud') is included in that guarantee, so he does not guarantee it a second time, just as if he had severed her hand and the wound resulted in her death; he guarantees the value of the person, not the value of the hand. Al-Shafi'i said: He is liable for her mahr, because he had prohibited intercourse with someone else's slave girl, so he is liable for her mahr, just like a stranger. He is also liable for both of their values, according to the opinion that she becomes an umm al-walad, just as one of two partners is liable for the value of his partner's share if he makes a jointly owned slave girl pregnant. Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "You and your wealth belong to your father." Furthermore, he is not liable for the value of her child, so he is not liable for her mahr nor her value, similar to his own slave girl. This is because it is an act of intercourse through which the woman impregnated becomes an umm al-walad for a reason that is not exclusive to only a part of her, so it is analogous to making his own slave girl pregnant.

Section: If the son had already had intercourse with a slave girl, and then his father had intercourse with her and made her pregnant, it has been narrated from Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding someone who has sexual relations with his son's slave girl: If the father had taken possession of her and the son had not had intercourse with her, then she is his umm al-walad, and the son has no claim to her. Al-Qadi said: The apparent implication of this is that if the son had already had intercourse with her, she does not become an umm al-walad for the father by making her pregnant, because she becomes permanently forbidden to him due to his son's intercourse with her and never becomes lawful for him under any circumstance, so it is analogous to the intercourse of a stranger. According to this opinion, he does not own her, and she does not become free upon his death. As for her child, he becomes free through his brother, because he is a relative (dhu rahim) of his. It is possible that the ruling of istilad (motherhood-of-a-child status) is established for her without her becoming lawful for him, just as if he made his slave girl, whom his son had already had intercourse with, pregnant; she becomes an umm al-walad for him, despite the fact that she is permanently forbidden to him. Thus, it is the same here, because it is an act of intercourse where the hadd is warded off due to the ambiguity of ownership, so she becomes an umm al-walad by it, just as if the son had not had intercourse with her.