except for their spouses or those whom their right hands possess" (25). The owner of the physical entity does not possess her fully, nor is he safe from her becoming pregnant by him, for that might lead to her ruin. Whichever of them copulates with her, no hadd (prescribed punishment) is imposed upon him, because it is copulation by mistake due to the existence of a form of ownership for each of them over her, and her child is free because he is the result of copulation by mistake. If the one who copulated is the owner of the benefit, she does not become a "umm walad" (mother of a child) for him, because he does not own her. He is liable for the value of her child on the day of his birth, and her status is as we have mentioned regarding the case where someone else copulates with her by mistake. If the one who copulated is the owner of the physical entity, she becomes a "umm walad" for him, because she conceived from him a free child while in his ownership. Regarding the obligation of his value upon him, there are two views. As for the mahr (dower), in my view, if the one who copulated is [the owner of the physical entity] (27), then no mahr is due from him, and the mahr is due to him from the owner of the benefit if he is the one who copulated. According to our scholars and the scholars of Al-Shafi'i, it is the reverse in both cases. The reasoning for this has already been presented. It is possible that the hadd is obligatory upon the owner of the benefit if he copulates, because he owns nothing but the benefit, so the hadd becomes incumbent upon him, like the lessee; according to this view, his child would be a slave.

Section: Neither of them has the right to marry her off, because the owner of the benefit does not own her physical entity, and the owner of the physical entity does not have the right to marry her off due to the harm this causes the owner of the benefit by marrying her. If she requests it, marrying her off becomes obligatory, because it is for her right, and her right in this matter takes precedence over both of them (28), as evidenced by the fact that if she requested it from her master who owns both her physical entity and her benefit, he would be compelled to do so, and her right would be given precedence over his right. Likewise, if they both agree to marry her off before she requests it, it is permissible, and her guardian in both cases is the owner of her physical entity because he is her owner. The discussion regarding her mahr and her child is as previously stated in the preceding section.

Section: If the slave whose benefit was bequeathed is killed, his value becomes obligatory, with which is purchased that which takes the place of