wisdom whose consideration has not been established by the Lawgiver, and it is countered by harm; for in her free emancipation is harm to the owner by removing his property without compensation, and in the istis'a (labor for freedom) is compelling her to earn without her consent and wasting his right; because it involves shifting [the matter] to an earnings-based labor, and we do not know if anything will be obtained from it or not? And if it were obtained, the apparent [state] is that it would be meager, at scattered times, and its existence is close to non-existence. The truth is that the ownership remains as it was, he is prevented from intercourse with her and enjoying her, so that he does not have intercourse with her or degrade her while he is a polytheist, he is kept away from her, he is prevented from being alone with her, so as not to lead to forbidden intercourse, and he is compelled to provide fully for her maintenance; because she is his property, and he is prevented from having intercourse with her through no sin of hers, so she is like a menstruating or sick woman. She is to be delivered to a trustworthy woman to stay with her in order to protect her and attend to her affairs. If she requires wages or rent, it is upon her master. Al-Qadi mentioned that her maintenance is from her earnings, and what remains of her earnings belongs to her master. If he is unable to provide for her maintenance, is the master obligated to fulfill her maintenance? There are two reports [on this]. The school of al-Shafi'i is similar to this. The correct [view] is that her maintenance is upon her master, and her earnings belong to him, he does with it as he wishes and he is obligated to provide her maintenance [in full, whether she has earnings or not; because she is property belonging to him, and no contract occurred between them that voids her maintenance], and he does not own her earnings through it, so she is like his ordinary slave girl, or as she was before her Islam. Furthermore, ownership is a cause for these two rulings, and the event occurring from them is not suitable as an impediment; because istilad does not prevent them, evidenced by [the state] before her Islam, and Islam does not prevent them, evidenced by if it had occurred before her childbirth. Their combination does not prevent [them], because there is no text regarding it, nor is it in the meaning of what is expressed by text. And because if her maintenance were not required of him, and she had no earnings, it would lead to her ruin and loss. And because he owns the surplus of her earnings, he is therefore obligated for the surplus of her maintenance, like the rest of his slaves.
2018 - Issue; He said: (And when the umm al-walad is emancipated upon the death of her master, whatever is in her hand of anything belongs to the heirs of her master.)
(1) In M: "wa-baqa'uha" (and her remaining). (2) In the original: "min ghayr" (without). (3) In B: "am" (or). (4) In B: "naqsuha" (her deficit). (5) Omitted from: The original. (6) Omitted from: B. "Naql nazar" (a point for consideration). (1) This issue is omitted from: B. (2) In A: "u'tiqat" (she was emancipated).
حِكْمَةٍ لم يُعْرَفْ من الشارِعِ اعْتبارُها، ويُقابِلُها (١) ضَرَرٌ، فإِنَّ فى عِتْقِها مَجَّانًا إضْرارًا بالمالِكِ، بإزالَةِ مِلْكِه بغيرِ (٢) عِوَضٍ، وفى الاسْتِسْعاءِ إلْزامٌ لها بالكسْبِ بغيرِ رِضَاها، وتَضْييعٌ لحَقِّهِ؛ لأَنَّ فيه إحالَةً على سِعَايةٍ لا نَدْرِى هل يحْصُلُ منها شىءٌ أو (٣) لا؟ وإِنْ حصَلَ، فالظَّاهِرُ أَنَّه يكونُ يَسِيرًا، فى أوْقاتٍ مُتَفرِّقَةٍ، وُجُودُه قريبٌ من عَدَمِه، والحقُّ أَنْ يَبْقَى المِلْكُ على ما كان عليه، ويُمْنعَ من وَطْئِها، والتَّلَذذِ بها، كى لا يَطَأَهَا ويَبْتَذِلَها وهو مُشْرِكٌ، ويُحالَ بينَه وبينَها، ويُمْنعَ الخَلْوَةَ بها، لِئَلَّا يُفْضِىَ إلى الوَطْءِ المُحرَّمِ، ويُجْبَرَ على نَفَقَتِها على التَّمامِ؛ لأنَّها مَملوكَتُه، ومَنْعُه من وطْئِها بغيرِ مَعْصِيَةٍ منها، فأشْبَهَتِ الحائِضَ والمريضَةَ، وتُسَلَّمُ إلى امْراة ثِقَةٍ، تكونُ عندَها، لتَحْفَظَها، وَتَقُومَ بأَمْرِها، وإِنْ احْتاجَتْ إلى أَجْرٍ، أو أجْرِ مَسْكَنٍ، فعلى سَيِّدِها. وذكَرَ القاضى أَنَّ نَفَقَتَها فى كَسْبِها، وما فَضَلَ من كَسْبِها فهو لِسَيِّدِها. وإن عَجَزَ عن نَفَقَتِها، فهلْ يَلْزَمُ سَيِّدَها تَمامُ نَفَقَتِها (٤)؟ على رِوايَتَيْن. ونحوُ هذا مذهبُ الشافِعِىِّ. والصَّحِيحُ أَنَّ نَفَقَتَها على سَيِّدِها، وكَسْبَها له، يَصْنَعُ به ما شاءَ وعليه نَفَقَتُها [على التَّمامِ، سَواءٌ كان لها كَسْبٌ أو لم يَكُنْ؛ لأنَّها مَمْلوكَةٌ له (٥)، ولم يَجْرِ بينَهما عَقْدٌ يُسْقِط نَفَقَتَها] (٦)، ولا يَمْلِكُ به كَسْبَها، فأَشْبَهَتْ أمَتَه القِنَّ، أو ما قَبْلَ إسْلامِها، ولأنَّ المِلْكَ سَبَبٌ لهذَيْن الحُكْمَيْن، والحادِثُ منهما لا يصْلُحُ مانِعًا؛ لأنَّ الاسْتِيلادَ لا يَمْنعُ منهما، بدليلِ ما قبلَ إِسْلامِها، والإِسْلامُ لا يَمْنعُ، بدليلِ ما لو وُجِدَ قَبْلَ ولادَتِها، واجْتماعُهما لا يَمْنَعُ، لأنَّه لا نَصَّ فيه، ولا هو فى مَعْنَى المنْصُوص عليه، ولأنَّه إذا لم تَلْزَمْه نَفَقَتُها، ولم يكُنْ لها كَسْبٌ، أفْضَى إلى هَلاكِها وضَياعِها، ولأنَّه يَمْلِكُ فاضِلَ كَسْبِها، فيَلْزَمُه فَضْلُ نَفَقَتِها، كسائِرِ مَماليكِهِ.
٢٠١٨ - مسألة (١)؛ قال: (وَإِذَا عَتَقَتْ (٢) أُمُّ الْوَلَدِ بمَوْتِ سَيِّدِهَا، فَمَا كَانَ فِى
(١) فى م: "وبقاؤها".(٢) فى الأصل: "من غير".(٣) فى ب: "أم".(٤) فى ب: "نقصها".(٥) سقط من: الأصل.(٦) سقط من: ب. نقل نظر.(١) سقطت هذه المسألة من: ب.(٢) فى أ: "أعتقت".
