Section
If a man acknowledges having intercourse with his female slave and she bears a child, its paternity is attributed to him, provided the birth falls within the period in which paternity may legally be established. This applies whether he says, “I used to ejaculate inside her,” or, “I used to withdraw,” unless he claims that she underwent a waiting period establishing that she was not pregnant. According to al-Mudawwana, this consists of one menstrual period; another opinion requires three menstrual periods, which is the position of Ibn al-Mājishūn. His claim is accepted, either upon oath, according to Ibn al-Mājishūn, or without an oath, according to Sahnūn. He may thus disclaim paternity without resorting to mutually sworn imprecations.
Another opinion holds that his claim concerning the waiting period is not accepted, and that paternity is attributed to him in all cases within the period in which it may legally be established. This is the position of al-Mughīra, one of our school’s scholars. What he means is when the man ejaculates inside her and does not withdraw. And Allah knows best. Some scholars outside the school hold that paternity is not attributed to him if he says, “I used to withdraw,” even if he makes no claim concerning a waiting period.
According to Mālik and all his companions, unless he claims that she underwent such a waiting period, his denial of paternity is of no avail, even if he practised withdrawal. The female slave’s statement attributing the child to him is accepted, whether he denies that she gave birth at all or says that she did give birth, but that this is not the child whose paternity she seeks to attribute to him.
Section
If, however, she produces no child but claims that she bore him one, her claim is not accepted, and she does not acquire the status of a slave woman who has borne her master’s child unless she produces two female witnesses to the birth. If she produces one female witness to the birth, the master must swear that she did not bear him a child. If no one testifies to the birth, the master is not required to swear an oath, even if he acknowledges having intercourse with her.
Section
If, however, he denies having intercourse with her, but she produces two witnesses establishing it against him and presents a child, the correct view is that this is equivalent to his acknowledging intercourse. Her statement attributing the child to him is accepted, and she thereby acquires the status of a slave woman who has borne her master’s child, even if she produces no evidence of the birth. If he claims that she underwent a waiting period establishing that she was not pregnant, whether his claim is accepted is governed by the same disagreement concerning a man who seeks to contest his wife’s decision in exercising delegated authority to divorce after having denied that delegation, and a man who claims to have returned a deposit after having denied receiving it. Both opinions have a basis in al-Mudawwana. Some distinguish between his acknowledging intercourse and his denying it when evidence establishes it against him. They maintain that, if he denies it and evidence establishes it against him, she is not to be believed