the child is not ascribed to him. If it is not ascribed to him, then the child belongs to him as his slave. Thus, he is spared having his slave woman become an umm walad, whom he is forbidden to sell and who is emancipated upon his death; instead, he has a child-slave whom he may sell. For when a slave woman gives birth to a child—even through a valid marriage—the child belongs to her master as his slave, unless a condition was stipulated, or there was deception—for example, if she deceived him by claiming to be free and he was misled by her. That is a different matter.

If he says, “I had intercourse with her other than vaginally,” or, “I had vaginal intercourse with her but did not ejaculate,” or, “I practised coitus interruptus,” the child is ascribed to him. And if he emancipates her or sells her after acknowledging that he had intercourse with her, and she gives birth to a child in less than half a year, the child is ascribed to him and the sale is invalid.

His statement, “If he says, ‘I had intercourse with her other than vaginally,’ or, ‘I had vaginal intercourse with her but did not ejaculate,’ or, ‘I practised coitus interruptus,’ the child is ascribed to him”: the master makes this claim in order that the child not be considered to have come from his semen. Thus, he says, “I had intercourse with her other than vaginally,” though it is known that intercourse other than vaginally does not result in pregnancy. Or he says, “It was vaginal intercourse, but I did not ejaculate,” which likewise does not result in pregnancy. Or he says, “It was vaginal intercourse and I ejaculated, but I practised coitus interruptus”—that is, when ejaculation was imminent, he withdrew and ejaculated outside the vagina. The author says that the child’s lineage is nevertheless ascribed to him, based on what has preceded: once he has intercourse with her, vaginally or otherwise, she becomes a legal marital bed for him. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “The child belongs to the marital bed” (1).

His statement, “And if he emancipates her or sells her after acknowledging that he had intercourse with her, and she gives birth to a child in less than half a year, the child is ascribed to him and the sale is invalid”: he acknowledged that he had intercourse with his slave woman and then sold her. After selling her, five months passed and she gave birth to a child that survived. To whom does the child belong? The answer is: to the first master. Why does it not belong to the second master?