And according to Mālik and one report from Ahmad, he must redeem him by paying the compensation due for the wrong, however much it may be. This slave has acted wrongfully and aggressively, wronging these people; liability for his wrongdoing therefore attaches to the slave himself. The same applies to whatever he borrowed from his wife’s wealth while claiming to be free: this too constitutes a wrong against them, and liability attaches to the slave himself according to the sounder of the two scholarly views. And Allah knows best.
He—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—was asked:
A woman accepted property in satisfaction of her dower after her husband’s death, then sold that property and received its price. She subsequently acknowledged that she had received her dower from a source other than the proceeds of that property. Does this invalidate the purchaser’s right? Or should the amount she acknowledged receiving apart from that property be recovered from her?
He answered:
No right is invalidated merely by this admission. The heirs may demand from her the sale proceeds of the property she accepted in satisfaction of her dower, if she acknowledges having received her dower before that.
Some had issued a ruling that the amount she acknowledged receiving from the estate should be recovered from her, but this is unfounded. Her admission entails that she had received her dower in full and that, after receiving it, she acquired another property. Thus, it was the heirs, not the purchaser, whom she deprived of the real estate.
He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:
A man married a woman, had her marriage contract drawn up, and paid her the immediately payable portion of the dower in full. The portion payable in instalments remained outstanding, but none of it had yet fallen due. He asked her to join him for consummation, but she refused, and she has a maternal aunt who is preventing her from doing so. Is she to be compelled to join him for consummation? And is her aforementioned aunt required to hand her over to him?