When is the child of a slave woman free, and when is he a slave?

The Shaykh : Because if the master fathers a child with his slave woman, the child is free. And if the master’s slave woman is impregnated by her husband, meaning if her husband is the one who impregnated her, the child is a slave. So, if a slave woman gives birth to a child from her master, he is free, and if she gives birth to a child from someone else, he is a slave.

The questioner : What if the husband is a free man?

The Shaykh : Yes, even if he is a free man, and she is a slave. We are talking about the slave woman.

The questioner : If she gives birth to a child from her master, does she become free?

The Shaykh : She does not become free; she becomes a *umm walad* (mother of a child), and she is freed when the master dies...
Did you understand, everyone? Good.
I say: This one said: even though the child is free, so how can he say: ?
We say: The letter *lam* in the Arabic language comes for ownership, and it comes for exclusivity. The *lam* here is for exclusivity, because there is a claimant and a respondent. So, "he is for you" means he is exclusively yours, even though he is free and you do not own him.
Good, when he became the son of Zam'ah, he became his brother, and Sawdah bint Zam'ah? Does she become his sister?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : His aunt or his sister, did he find her to be his aunt or his maternal aunt? Be decisive about something? She is definitely his sister? Good, she is his sister.
There is no issue here that she is his sister; if she died, he would inherit from her, and if he died, she would inherit from him. But he said: , then he said to Sawdah: How can she veil herself from him when he is her brother? He said: Because he saw the resemblance between him and 'Utbah.
And this is one of the difficult issues in scholarly matters. If the Shari'ah rules that she is his sister, then she is his sister, and she does not veil herself from him, correct? So why did he say: ?
Because a sensory matter opposed this legal ruling, which is the resemblance. This created doubt. So, because of this doubt, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took the path of precaution in this issue, that she should veil herself from him as a precaution because of this resemblance. This is the correct view.
And some scholars said: Rather, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied both causes: the legal cause and the sensory cause. The legal cause was when he attributed him to Zam'ah, and the sensory cause was when he saw the resemblance. But this view is weak. First: because we say the sensory cause has no effect in opposing the legal cause.
The second thing: The sensory cause and the legal cause have contradictory rulings, so it is not possible to apply both. And the two opposites, as the scholars said, cannot coexist. So it is not possible for a ruling to coexist with a contradictory ruling by virtue of evidence. So the correct view in this issue is that this is a matter of precaution.
The issue of breastfeeding in in-laws is analogous to this issue. The correct view regarding breastfeeding in in-laws is that it does not establish prohibition; it does not establish prohibition. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). And the majority of scholars, including the four schools of jurisprudence, hold that it does establish prohibition. But what does breastfeeding in in-laws mean?
For example, is the wife’s mother through breastfeeding a *mahram* (relative one may not marry) for the husband? This is the issue. The wife’s mother by blood is a *mahram* until he said: But the wife’s mother through breastfeeding, is she like her mother by blood or not?
Most scholars, including the four Imams, hold that she is like her mother by blood, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): And the wife’s mother by blood is forbidden to the husband, so the wife’s mother through breastfeeding is forbidden. Just as the blood relation of the mother with her daughter forbade her to the husband, so the breastfeeding of the mother for the wife forbids her to the husband. This is the view of whom? The majority, including the four Imams.
As for the scholar of the Taymiyyah family, rather the scholar of the Ummah in his time, he refused that and said: The hadith is an argument against you, not for you. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And we ask you now: Is the wife’s mother forbidden by blood or by in-law? She is forbidden to the husband by in-law. There is no blood relation at all between her and the husband. The blood relation is between her and the intermediary, who is the wife. And the prohibition is specific to the direct relation, not the intermediary. And the husband, is there any blood relation between him and the wife’s mother? No. The blood relation is between the wife’s mother and the wife, not between her and the husband. This is clear. And if the wife’s mother, even by your admission, does not fall under the prohibition by blood, then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Count the *mahrams* by blood; there are seven, and the *mahrams* by in-law are not included in them.
But if a person takes the path of precaution and says: We follow the view of the majority in forbidding him from marrying her, meaning the mother of his wife through breastfeeding, if he divorces the daughter or she dies, we say: Do not take her mother into consideration regarding the view of the majority, and do not make her a *mahram* for you to be alone with her and travel with her, taking into consideration the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. If a person takes this path, if he is in doubt between the two views, this hadith which is with us, the story of 'Abd ibn Zam'ah, would be the basis for his path, and he would have built on a correct principle.
But if he takes this path, woe to him from the tongues of the common people. How is it permissible to marry her when she is not a *mahram* for him? This is a contradiction, correct or not?
Yes, the common people do not know. They say this is a contradiction. Now you say you do not look for a wife, and you say you do not marry her? The one you do not look for, you marry her? How can you say this? Is this a contradiction?
So we say to you: We issue a ruling to you that if no woman from the daughters of Adam remains except this woman, and there is intense desire, meaning a strong urge to marry, then at that time it becomes permissible for him. Although, in most cases, she will be an old woman because she is the mother of his wife through breastfeeding, but the person with intense desire does not care if she is an old woman or a young girl.
We say: If no woman remains in the world except this woman, then we allow you to marry her, and at that time we take the path of precaution. Is that clear, everyone? Good.