wealthy, and, if he is in straitened circumstances, the rescuer may treat it as a debt to be collected later. According to Mālik and the majority of his companions, this applies whether the ransom was paid with the captive’s prior consent or without it. Nonetheless, nothing becomes binding upon the captive except what he expressly authorised; anything for which he gave no authorisation is counted as a voluntary act on the rescuer’s part.

If the rescuer were presented, as a gift, with either a slave or a free man and gave no counter-gift in return, he has no right to seek reimbursement from the free man himself, nor from the slave’s owner. However, if he did offer a counter-gift for both—or for one—he may demand its value from the free man, while the slave’s owner may choose either to pay that value or to hand the slave over in lieu of it.

When hostages belonging to the polytheists are in Muslim hands as a pledge, and those hostages later embrace Islam, yet the original agreement stipulated that they would be returned, the Muslims are obliged to send them back. Scholars other than Mālik object to this, but Mālik’s view is the sound one, God willing.

This position is also transmitted from Mālik, and the scholars of Medina relate from him that whenever an enemy combatant, under a guarantee of safe-conduct, brings a Muslim captive into Muslim territory, the captive must be taken from him for his full value, whether the harbī consents or not. Once that value has been paid, he is not allowed to take the captive back. It is impermissible for the Muslim community to leave him to be returned to the land of unbelief; rather, they are duty-bound to secure his release.

Mālik and Ibn al-Qāsim further stated: In the case of spouses, if one of them ransoms the other, neither may demand reimbursement—unless the ransoming spouse did not recognise the other as such at the time. The same rule applies to paternal and maternal aunts and to other unmarriageable relatives (maḥārim), except for those whose purchase would automatically set them free; in that last case, no reimbursement may be sought, whether the ransomer knew the ruling or not. The reason husbands and wives, and those whose ownership would not entail automatic manumission, may not claim reimbursement is that their action is deemed an act of charity and voluntary goodwill. Allah knows best.