their religion indefinitely, until his own tongue can articulate the declaration of Islam and he has been taught it. Whether both of his parents are present or absent, if one of them accepts Islam, Mālik holds that the child follows his father’s religion, whereas others say he follows whichever of the two has embraced Islam. A third opinion maintains that when both parents—or even one of them—are with the child, he remains on their religion; but if neither parent is present, he is deemed a Muslim, following the religion of his master.

The scholars of Medina report from Mālik that a minor slave adopts the religion of his Muslim master from the very day the master purchases him, without the condition—mentioned by Ibn al-Qāsim in his narration—that the child first be taught the details of Islam. We have clarified this matter in al-Tamhīd and al-Istidhkār.

If a woman is captured while she has a husband, the act of captivity nullifies the marriage, and it becomes lawful for the man in whose allotment she falls to have relations with her by virtue of ownership, after a waiting period to ensure she is not pregnant. This ruling applies so long as her husband is not included in the same division of captives. If both spouses are captured together and enter the spoils simultaneously, Mālik and his companions hold two different opinions:

1. When husband and wife are taken captive together, they are treated like protected non-Muslims (dhimmīs); captivity does not sever their bond.
2. Captivity dissolves the marital bond in all cases, whether they are captured separately or together. This view is clearer and, God willing, the sounder opinion, as we have explained in al-Tamhīd.

If a young child is captured along with them, he must not be separated from his parents—neither through sale nor through the distribution of spoils—until he has lost his front teeth or reaches eight years of age, is able to care for himself as other children of the same age do, and is neither mentally impaired nor sickly.