that, when they afflict a person, leave no hope of recovery.
His statement, “or the like”: such as one who is chronically incapacitated or paralysed. Such a person does not suffice, because he is unable to perform the work required of him.
“Nor an umm walad (a slave woman who has borne her master a child). A mudabbar (a slave whose emancipation is contingent upon his master’s death), a child born of fornication, a fool, a mortgaged slave, a slave who has committed an offense, and a pregnant slave woman—even if he excludes her pregnancy—are valid.”
His statement, “Nor an umm walad”: she is a woman who has borne her master a child in whom human features have become discernible, even if the child was not alive. If she gives birth before that stage, then she is not an umm walad. Such a woman remains subject to the rulings governing slaves; however, when her master dies, she becomes free. Is it permissible to sell her? The scholars differ over this. What was known during the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, and the early part of Umar’s caliphate was that such women were sold. But when Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, saw that separation between them and their children had become widespread, he prohibited the sale of ummahat al-awlad (slave mothers who have borne their masters’ children) (1). As for why she does not suffice, it is because the cause of her emancipation has been established through childbirth; thus, she is not, in reality, wholly a slave.
His statement, “A mudabbar is valid”: this is a slave whose master has made his emancipation contingent upon his own death, such as when he says to the slave, “When I die, you are free.” He is called a mudabbar because his emancipation comes after the end of his master’s life. He is valid because ownership of him remains complete: he is not emancipated under this arrangement until the master’s death. Therefore, it is permissible for a person to sell a mudabbar, since he has not yet become free. This is like saying, “This house is an endowment after my death”: he may sell it, because it has not yet become an endowment.
It was also said that a mudabbar is not valid, because he is deficient. The reason for this alleged deficiency is that his emancipation is contingent upon his master’s death. But the first view is correct, because if the mudabbar is emancipated, he gains immediate freedom and liberation. If it is permissible to sell a mudabbar, then why should it not be permissible to emancipate him, especially when his emancipation brings the benefit of his freedom?