through death, she resembles the mudabbarah, and she differs from the free woman, for the latter is complete.
Section: Retaliation (qisas) is not mandatory upon a free woman for killing her; due to the lack of parity. If the killer of her is a slave, then retaliation is mandatory upon him, because she is more complete than him. If she commits an offense against a male slave or a female slave, an offense for which there is retaliation, then retaliation is incumbent upon her; because she is a slave-woman whose legal status is the status of slave-women, and her entitlement to freedom does not prevent retaliation, just like the mudabbarah.
2026 - Issue; He said: "And if she prays with her head uncovered, it is disliked for her, but it is valid."
It is only disliked for her to uncover her head in her prayer because she has acquired a resemblance to free women due to the prohibition against selling her. Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, was asked about the umm al-walad, how does she pray? He said: "She should cover her head and her feet, because she is not sold." Al-Hasan used to prefer for the slave-woman, when her master has had intimate relations with her, that she should not pray except fully covered. If she prays with her head uncovered, it suffices her; because she is a slave-woman, her legal status is the status of slave-women. Ibrahim said: "The umm al-walad prays without a head-covering, even if she is sixty years old." It has been narrated from Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, another narration that her nakedness (awra) is the nakedness of a free woman. We have mentioned this in the Book of Prayer. The correct view is that her legal status is the status of slave-women, and she only differs from them in her entitlement to freedom and the prohibition of transferring ownership of her, and this does not necessitate a change in the ruling regarding her nakedness, just like the mudabbarah. Furthermore, because the original state is the continuation of her status regarding the permissibility of uncovering her head, and nothing has been found that shifts this status—neither a text nor that which is in its meaning—therefore, the ruling remains as it was.
2027 - Issue; He said: "And if the umm al-walad kills her master, she is liable for the value of herself."
In summary, if the umm al-walad kills her master, she becomes free; because it is not possible to transfer ownership of her, and her master's ownership has ceased due to his being killed, so she becomes free, just as if someone other than her killed him. She is liable for the value of herself, if retaliation is not mandatory upon her.
(1) In B: "idhā waṭiʾahā" (when he has had intimate relations with her). It is omitted from the original and A: "yaʿnī waṭiʾahā" (meaning: he has had intimate relations with her). (2) In the original, A, and B: "aḥkāmuhā" (her legal status). (3) It preceded in 2/331-333.
بالموتِ، أشْبَهَت المُدَبَّرَةِ، وتُفارِقُ الحُرَّةَ، فإنَّها كامِلَةٌ.
فصل: ولا يَجِبُ القصاصُ على الحُرَّةِ بقَتْلِها؛ لعدَمِ المُكافَأَةِ. وإِنْ كان القاتِلُ لها رَقِيقًا، وجَبَ القِصاصُ عليه؛ لأنَّها أكْمَلُ منه. وإِنْ جَنَتْ على عبدٍ أو أَمَةٍ، جنايَةً فيها القِصاصُ، لَزِمَها القِصاصُ؛ لأنَّها أَمَةٌ، أحْكامُها أحْكامُ الإِماءِ، واسْتِحْقاقُها العِتْقَ لا يَمْنَعُ القِصاصَ، كالمُدَبَّرَةِ.
٢٠٢٦ - مسألة؛ قال: (وإِنْ صَلَّتْ مَكْشُوفَةَ الرَّأْسِ، كُرِهَ لَهَا ذلِكَ، وأَجْزأَهَا)
إنَّما كُرِهَ لها كَشْفُ رَأْسِها فى صلاتِها؛ لأنَّها قدأخَذَتْ شَبَهًا من الحَرائِرِ، لامْتِناعِ بَيْعِها. وقد سُئِلَ أحمدُ، رَضِىَ اللَّهُ عنه، عن أُمِّ الولدِ كيف تُصَلِّى؟ قال: تُغَطِّى رَأْسَها وقَدَمَيْها؛ لأنَّها لا تُباعُ. وكان الحسنُ يُحِبُّ للأَمَةِ إذا [عَهِدَها سَيِّدُها -يعنى وَطِئَها] (١) - أَنْ لا تُصَلِّىَ إِلَّا مُجْتَمِعَةً. وإِنْ صَلَّتْ مكْشُوفَةَ الرَّأْسِ، أَجْزَأَها؛ لأنَّها أمَةٌ، حكمُها حكمُ (٢) الإِماءِ. قال إبراهيمُ: تُصَلِّى أُمُّ الولدِ بغيرِ قِناعِ، وإِنْ كانَتْ بنتَ سِتِّينَ سَنَةً. وقد رُوِىَ عن أحمدَ، رَضِىَ اللَّهُ عنه، رِوايةٌ أُخْرَى، أَنَّ عَوْرَتَها عَوْرَةُ الحُرَّةِ. وذكرنا ذلك فى كتابِ الصَّلاةِ (٣). والصحيحُ أنّ حُكْمَها حكمُ الإِماءِ، وإنَّما خالَفَتْهُنَّ فى اسْتِحْقاقِها للعِتْقِ، وامْتِناعِ نَقْلِ المِلْكِ فيها، وهذا لا يوجِبُ تغَيُّرَ الحكمِ فى عَوْرَتِها، كالمُدَبَّرَةِ، ولأنَّ الأَصْلَ بقاءُ حُكْمِها فى إباحَةِ كشفِ رَأْسِها، ولم يُوجَدْ ما يَنْقُلُ عنه مِن نَصٍّ، ولا ما فى مَعْناه، فيَبْقَى الحكمُ على ما كان عليه.
٢٠٢٧ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَإِذَا قَتلَتْ أمُّ الْوَلَدِ سَيِّدَهَا، فعَلَيْهَا قِيمَةُ نَفْسِهَا)
وجملتُه أَنَّ أُمَّ الولدِ إذا قَتَلَتْ سَيِّدَها، عَتَقَتْ؛ لأنَّها لا يُمْكِنُ نَقْلُ المِلْكِ فيها، وقد زالَ مِلْكُ سَيِّدِها بقَتْلِه، فصارَتْ حُرَّةً، كما لو قَتَلَه غيرُها، وعليها قِيمَةُ نَفْسِها، إِنْ لم يجبِ
(١) فى ب: "إذا وطئها". وسقط من: الأصل، أ: "يعنى وطئها".(٢) فى الأصل، أ، ب: "أحكامها".(٣) تقدم فى ٢/ ٣٣١ - ٣٣٣.
