in another passage.

This hadith thus accords with these three principles, which are established by evidence consistent with just analogical reasoning. If she willingly submitted to him, he has spoiled her for her owner, for by consenting she becomes guilty of fornication. This diminishes her value and prevents her owner from employing her as before, because of his aversion to her, the slave woman’s desire for the master, and the master’s longing for her—especially since this creates difficulties for her owner, so that he does not obey her as she used to obey him.

If someone deals with property in a way that diminishes its value, its owner is entitled to demand an equivalent replacement. He therefore awarded her an equivalent slave woman. Clearly, if she preferred to retain ownership of her and require him to compensate for the diminution in her value, that would not have been precluded. The ruling merely established an option available to her. This entails, however, that if a man spoils a slave woman for her owners by inducing her to consent to fornication, they may demand a replacement from him. He must then provide an equivalent slave woman, on the principle that an equivalent must be provided, as far as possible, for anything for which compensation is owed.

If, however, he forced her, this falls under mutilation, for forcing someone to submit to intercourse constitutes mutilation: intercourse is treated as a form of destruction. Hence it has been said that if a man forces his male slave to submit to sodomy, the slave thereby becomes free. For this reason, intercourse entails either compensation or punishment; it is not treated like the benefit derived from service.

Thus, since she became his property through his spoiling her for her owner, he was required to provide an equivalent slave woman, just as in the case of consent. His having mutilated her then made her free of his ownership.

It may be said that this necessarily entails that if a man forces his male slave to submit to the indecent act, the slave thereby becomes free; and if he forces another person’s slave woman to submit to the indecent act, she becomes free, and he is liable to compensate for her