the son also believed that he did not own her, but had intercourse with her with permission, then this depends on the “second principle.” Scholars differ concerning someone who has intercourse with another person’s slave woman with that person’s permission. Mālik holds that he acquires ownership of her upon payment of her value, whether or not she becomes pregnant. The other three imams hold that he does not thereby acquire ownership of her.

According to Mālik’s view, therefore, she likewise belongs to the son and becomes his umm walad, and his child is free. According to the other three imams, the slave woman does not become his umm walad. But is the child free—as in the case of someone who has intercourse with his wife’s slave woman with her permission? Two positions are reported from Ahmad. The first is that the child is not free; this is also the position of Abū Hanīfah, even if the man believed that she was lawful for him. The second is that the child is free. This is the correct view when the man believed that she was lawful for him. It is the expressly stated position of al-Shāfi'ī and Ahmad concerning a pledgee: if he has intercourse with a slave woman pledged to him, with the pledgor’s permission, believing that this is permissible, his child is free from conception because of the legal doubt involved. Doubt arising from belief or ownership precludes the prescribed punishment by agreement of the imams. It likewise affects the child’s freedom and paternity, just as when someone has intercourse with her under an invalid marriage or invalid ownership: the child is free by agreement of the imams.

Abū Hanīfah disagrees with the two of them in this case and holds that the child is a slave. Mālik, however, holds that the man has acquired ownership of the slave woman through the intercourse for which permission was given.

Must the man who had intercourse with permission pay the child’s value? Al-Shāfi'ī has two views on this. The first, which is also Ahmad’s expressly stated position, is that he is not obliged to pay the child’s value, because he had intercourse with the owner’s permission. This is therefore like destroying someone’s property with that person’s permission. The second is that he must pay the child’s value, and this is the view of some