through it, because what is gifted to the slave belongs to his master. If the owner of the physical entity wishes to sell the slave, he may do so, and he is sold stripped of the benefit, and the purchaser takes the place of the seller in regard to what he is entitled to and what is incumbent upon him. It is said: It is not permissible to sell him [to the owner of his benefit without (21) anyone else] (22), because that which has no benefit in it cannot be validly sold, such as vermin and carrion. It is said: It is permissible to sell him to the owner of his benefit, excluding anyone else, because the owner of his benefit combines both the physical entity and the benefit, thus he benefits from that, unlike others. For this reason, it is permissible to sell fruit before its ripeness becomes apparent to the owner of the tree, to the exclusion of others, and likewise the sale of crops to the owner of the land. Our view is that he is an owned slave, for whom a bequest is valid, so his sale is valid like others, and because he is able to emancipate him, attain his wala' (right of patronage), and inherit the wala' of those whose wala' would be inherited through his emancipation, unlike vermin. If one bequeaths to a man the physical entity of a slave, and to another his benefit, it is valid, and the legatee of the physical entity stands in the place of the heir regarding what we have mentioned. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the proponents of ra'y.

Section: If one bequeaths to a man the benefit of his slave woman, and she gives birth to a child from a husband or through zina (illicit intercourse), he is owned, and his legal status is that of his mother, because the child follows the mother in her legal status, like the child of a mukataba (slave woman who has a contract of emancipation) and a mudabbara (slave woman promised emancipation upon the master's death). It is possible that he belongs to the owner of the physical entity, because that is not part of the benefit bequeathed, nor is he part of the physical entity whose benefit was bequeathed. If she is copulated with by mistake, the mahr (dower) is obligatory upon the one who copulated, to be paid to the owner of the benefit according to our scholars. In my view, it belongs to the owner of the physical entity, because the benefits of the vulva cannot be validly bequeathed in isolation (24), nor with anything else, nor is it permissible to transfer them separately from the physical entity without marriage, for they are subordinate to the physical entity and therefore belong to its owner. The owner of the benefit is not entitled to take its equivalent. If she gives birth to a child, he is free, and his value on the day of his delivery must be paid to the owner of the physical entity, according to one of the two views. In the other, a slave is bought with it to take his place. It is not permissible for the heir or the owner of the benefit to copulate with her, because the owner of the benefit does not own her physical entity, nor is he her husband, and copulation is not permitted