Section: The ruling regarding the disbeliever who embraces Islam, and the insane person who regains their sanity, is the same as the ruling for the child who reaches maturity in all the details we have specified, except that a state of ihram is not valid from these two; and even if they were to enter into ihram, it would not take effect, because they are not among the people of worship, and their ruling is that of one who has not entered into ihram.

Section: There remain four sections regarding the rules of the slave's Hajj: The first is regarding the ruling of his ihram. The second is regarding the ruling of his vow for Hajj. The third is regarding the ruling of what is binding upon him from crimes committed against his ihram. The fourth is the ruling on his invalidating [the Hajj] and missing it.

The First Section: Regarding his ihram: It is not permissible for a slave to enter into ihram without the permission of his master, because by doing so, he causes the master to lose his rights that are owed to him by committing to what is not obligatory. If he does so, his ihram takes effect and is valid, because it is a physical act of worship, so it is valid for the slave to engage in it without his master's permission, like prayer and fasting. His master may cause him to leave his state of ihram, according to one of the two narrations, because his remaining in it causes the master to lose his right to the slave's benefits without permission, so it is not binding upon his master, like fasting that harms his body. This is the choice of Ibn Hamid. If he forces him [to leave ihram], his ruling becomes that of the restricted (muhsar). The second [narration] is that he [the master] does not have the right to force him to leave it. This is the choice of Abu Bakr, because the slave cannot force himself to leave his voluntary [worship], so he does not possess the right to force his slave to leave it. The first is more correct, because the slave committed himself to a voluntary act by his own choice, which is analogous to a slave who enters ihram with his master's permission; whereas in our issue, he causes his master to lose a mandatory right without his [the master's] choice. As for if he entered into ihram with his master's permission, then he [the master] does not have the right to force him to leave it. This is what al-Shafi'i said. Abu Hanafah said: He has that right, because he granted him ownership of his own benefits, so he is entitled to retract them, like a lender who retracts a loan. We respond: It is a binding contract, concluded with the permission of his master, so his master does not have the right to prevent him from it, like marriage. It does not resemble a loan, because a loan is not binding. If he lends him something to pledge as security, and he pledges it, he would not have the right to retract it.