hunting, according to one of the two views; because the fee is in exchange for its benefits, and its benefits during this period return to its owner, so he is not entitled to compensation from someone else, just as if he had sown someone else's land and the owner took the crop and compensated him for his expenses. The second [view] is that he owes a fee for its equivalent, because he made use of its benefits, resembling the case where he did not hunt anything at all.

865 - Issue; He said: (Whoever usurps a slave woman, has intercourse with her, and she bears him a child, the prescribed penalty [Hadd] is required of him, and her master takes her, her children, and the dowry of her peer [Mahr al-Mithl]).

To summarize: If the usurper has intercourse with the usurped slave woman, he is an adulterer, because she is not his wife nor a slave girl owned by him. If he was aware of the prohibition, the penalty for adultery is required of him, because he has no ownership nor even a semblance of ownership, and he owes the dowry of her peer, whether she was coerced or willing. Al-Shafi'i said: There is no dowry for the willing woman, because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the earnings of a prostitute. Our view is that this is a right of the master, so it does not lapse by her willingness, just as if she gave permission for her hand to be cut. Furthermore, it is a right that becomes due to the master even if she were coerced, so it is due even if she is willing, just like the fee for her benefits, and the report is interpreted as applying to a free woman. The indemnity for her virginity [Arsh] is also due, because it is compensation for a part of her. It is possible that it is not due, because the dowry of a virgin includes the indemnity for virginity; that is why it usually exceeds the dowry of a non-virgin on account of what it entails in terms of the loss of virginity. If she becomes pregnant, the child is owned by her master, because it is from her growth and her parts, and his lineage is not established with the one who had intercourse with her, because it is from adultery. If she delivers the child alive, it must be returned along with her. If she miscarries it dead, there is no liability, because we do not know if it was alive prior to that. This is the opinion of the Qadi, and it is the view apparent from the Shafi'i school according to his followers. [Qadi Abu al-Husayn] said: Liability is due for its value if it were alive. Al-Shafi'i stated this explicitly, because he is liable for it if it miscarried due to his striking her, and what is liable by destruction is liable by [him].