What is the ruling regarding the enslavement of a *Mudabbir* who was a *Dhimmi* (protected non-Muslim) and subsequently joined the House of War, then his master died or manumitted him, and he was later captured by Muslims?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Tadbir (Deferred Emancipation)
Primary text
If the *Mudabbir* was a *Dhimmi*, joined the House of War, and subsequently his master died or he was manumitted, and then Muslims captured him, they gain ownership and divide him as spoils, according to the main opinion. This is based on the principle that the sanctity of a *Dhimmi*'s property is comparable to that of a Muslim's property, evidenced by the requirement of compensation for theft and the prohibition of taking his property if captured by non-Muslims and later recovered by the owner before division.
Supporting text
According to Al-Qadi and the school of Al-Shafi'i, Muslims do not gain ownership. Al-Qadi differentiates by stating that the master's property could have been legitimately taken if the master had defected to the House of War, thus validating the taking of the manumitted slave. This is refuted by stating that the master's property became permissible due to the loss of his protection and covenant, whereas the *wala'* of the apostate *Mudabbir*'s master remains protected, making the ruling regarding the nullification of *wala'* the same for both Muslim and *Dhimmi* masters.