: if he forced her, she is free, and he owes her mistress an equivalent slave woman; but if she consented, she belongs to him, and he owes her mistress an equivalent slave woman. Another wording states: ‘If she consented, both she and an equivalent slave woman from his property belong to her mistress.’” Some have criticized this hadith’s chain of transmission, but it is a sound hadith, and they themselves cite weaker reports as evidence. Its apparent difficulty, however, made them more inclined to grade it as weak.

This hadith accords with analogical reasoning when considered alongside three valid principles, each upheld by a group of jurists.

The first principle is that if someone alters another person’s property in a way that deprives its owner of its intended use, the owner may require him to provide an equivalent in compensation. An example is when someone alters wrongfully appropriated property so that it no longer bears its original designation. There are three views on this within Ahmad’s school and elsewhere.

The first is that it remains the property of its owner. The person who wrongfully appropriated it is liable for any decrease in its value and has no entitlement to any increase. This is al-Shāfiʿī’s view.

The second is that the person who wrongfully appropriated it thereby becomes its owner and owes compensation to its original owner. This is Abū Hanīfah’s view.

The third is that the owner may choose between taking it back, together with compensation for any decrease in value, and demanding a replacement. This is the fairest and strongest of these views. If he causes it to lose its intangible qualities, such as