a slave girl or otherwise, the child is guaranteed, just as if he usurped her while she was non-pregnant, and she became pregnant while in his possession and gave birth, he guarantees her child. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: The guarantee of the child is not required in both cases because it is not a usurped object, since usurpation is a forbidden act and it did not occur here; what occurred was the establishment of possession over it, and that is not his act because it was based on the existence of the child, and he had no part in bringing it about. Our view is that whatever one guarantees outside of a container, one guarantees what is within it, like a pearl in a shell, and walnuts and almonds, because it is a usurped object and thus is guaranteed, just like the mother. For the child is either deposited within the mother like a pearl in a jewelry box, or it is like her body parts, and in both cases, the seizure of the container—and the seizure of the whole—is a seizure of the specific part. If she miscarries it dead, he does not guarantee it because its life is not known, but what is required is the amount the mother has decreased in value from her state of being pregnant. As for when the pregnancy occurs, the discussion on that has already preceded.

The second matter is that he is obligated to return the existing part of the usurped object and the value of what was destroyed. If the value of the destroyed part does not differ from the time of usurpation to the time of return, he returns it. But if it does differ, we must consider: if their difference is due to an attribute within the item—such as growth, shrinkage, fatness, leanness, learning, forgetfulness, and similar characteristics that cause value to increase or decrease—then what is required is the highest value it ever reached, because it was usurped in that state [in which it increased], and the increase belongs to its owner and is guaranteed by the usurper, according to what we have established previously. If it was increased at the time of its destruction, he is liable for its value at that time because he would have been obligated to return it in its increased state, so he is liable for its value likewise. If it was increased before its destruction and then decreased at the time of its destruction, he is liable for its value at the time it was increased; for if he had returned it in a diminished state, he would have been obligated to pay for its decrease, which is a substitute for the increase. So if he guarantees the increase while returning it, he guarantees it upon its destruction.