regarding the children of the polytheists and those legally accountable persons to whom the message has not reached. Their ruling in this world is that they are disbelievers, because they do not profess Islam; and in the Hereafter, their case is as previously stated.

“If he acknowledges enslavement after something contrary to that has already occurred, or says, ‘He is a disbeliever,’ his statement is not accepted. If a group claim him, the one who produces evidence takes precedence; otherwise, he is assigned to the one to whom the physiognomists attribute him.”

His statement, “If he acknowledges enslavement after something contrary to that has already occurred, or says, ‘He is a disbeliever,’ his statement is not accepted”: in the phrase, “if he acknowledges,” the pronoun refers to the foundling. Thus, when he has grown up and is capable of making a legally valid acknowledgment, if he says, “I am the slave of so-and-so,” we consider whether something inconsistent with his claim had previously occurred. If so, we do not accept it. For example, if this foundling had been independently conducting sales, purchases, and all other transactions, and then said that he was a slave, we would not accept this. This is because he had been acting independently and did not say, “I must consult my master,” or anything similar. Thus, we do not accept it, because his acknowledgment contradicts his prior condition. But if nothing inconsistent had preceded it, then it is accepted.

The second view, which is the authoritative position of the school, is that it is not accepted, because freedom and enslavement are rights belonging to Allah—unless the person in whose favor the acknowledgment is made produces evidence that he is his slave. In that case, we rule on the basis of the evidence, not on the foundling’s acknowledgment. This is better than the view adopted by the author.

His statement, “or says, ‘He is a disbeliever,’” means that the foundling says this of himself. We do not accept it, because we have ruled that he is Muslim. The practical consequence of rejecting his statement, “I am a disbeliever,” is that if he persists in disbelief, he becomes an apostate. He is then told: either embrace Islam or be executed, because an apostate is not permitted to remain upon his apostasy. However, if he had been a disbeliever from the outset, we would allow him to remain upon his disbelief and levy the jizyah upon him, as required by the Sacred Law.

His statement, “If a group claim him, the one who produces evidence takes precedence”: “if they claim him,” that is—