The true nature of his position (1) is that he does not require proof of actual biological descent for lineage to be legally established. Rather, in his view, the child is attributed to the husband on the basis of the marital bed (2), even though he is certain that the husband did not make her pregnant.

This is analogous to his view that if a man divorces one of his two wives and then dies, and it is not known which of them he divorced, the inheritance is divided between them. Ahmad, however, has lots drawn between them (3). As for al-Shāfiī, he suspended judgment on the matter and issued no ruling (4) until the matter became clear to him (5) or the two women reached a settlement.

The majority of scholars disagree with him and say: “When it is known that biological descent is absent, neither lineage nor any of its legal consequences may be established.” He says: “Some legal consequences may be established despite the absence of biological descent.”

Likewise, if a man says to a slave of his who is older than he is, “You are my son,” he treats this as an indirect formula of emancipation, not as an acknowledgment of the slave’s lineage. The majority of scholars say: “It is an acknowledgment known to be false, so nothing (6) is established by it.”

Thus, regarding the matter for which he vilified Abū Hanīfah: if it is true, the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah concur with him on it; and if it is false (7), it does them no harm whatsoever (8), notwithstanding