most of those who dispute this agree that the child of a woman who has undergone mutual imprecation is forbidden in marriage to the man who invoked it against her, yet does not inherit from him. Scholars hold two views on acknowledging paternity of a child born of illicit intercourse when the mother has no husband.

It is established that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, attributed the son of Zamʿa ibn al-Aswad’s slave woman to Zamʿa ibn al-Aswad, although ʿUtba ibn Abī Waqqās had made her pregnant. Saʿd and ʿAbd ibn Zamʿa disputed over the child (*). Saʿd said, “He is my brother’s son. My brother entrusted me with the matter, saying, ‘This son of Zamʿa’s slave woman is my son.’”

ʿAbd said, “He is my brother, the son of my father’s slave woman, born on my father’s bed.”

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “He is yours, O ʿAbd ibn Zamʿa. The child belongs to the lawful bed, and the adulterer has no claim. Conceal yourself from him, O Sawda.”

This was because he saw the child’s clear resemblance to ʿUtba. Thus, he treated him as her brother for purposes of inheritance, but not as a close relative before whom she could unveil.

Scholars have also differed over whether a child born of illicit intercourse is automatically emancipated upon coming into the ownership of the biological father. There are two views within the schools of Abū Hanīfa and Ahmad. This issue requires a fuller discussion than this sheet can accommodate.

No one may attribute such a weak opinion to any imam of the Muslims, whether to disparage him or to follow him in it. Doing so involves both impugning the imams and following weak opinions. Through such means, the vizier of the Tatars began stirring up discord among the schools of Ahl al-Sunnah, seeking to induce them to abandon the Sunnah and the united community and draw them into the doctrines of the Rāfidah and the proponents of heresy. Allah knows best.