Dawud (40). It was narrated from Abu Sa'id that he said: "I used to practice 'azl with my slave girl, and she gave birth to the most beloved of creation to me," meaning his son. This is based on the hadith of 'Umar which we mentioned. Furthermore, because it is a ruling related to cohabitation, ejaculation is not considered alongside it, like other rulings. It has been said that water (sperm) may descend without one feeling it. If he admits to cohabitation without penetration, or in the anus, she does not become a bed by that; because it is not explicitly stated in the text, nor is it in the meaning of the stated text. Furthermore, the child is negated from him by the claim of istibra' if she gives birth after the istibra' by the duration of pregnancy, so it is more appropriate here. It is narrated from Ahmad that she does become a bed, because he may have had intercourse, and the fluid might have reached the vagina before him. The companions of Al-Shafi'i have two opinions like these two. If he claims istibra', his statement is accepted without an oath, in one of the two opinions; because one whose statement is accepted regarding istibra', it is accepted without an oath, like a woman claiming the completion of her 'idda (waiting period). In the other, he is required to take an oath. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i, due to the generality of his saying (peace be upon him): "But the oath is upon the defendant (41)." Furthermore, because istibra' is not specific to him, his statement regarding it is not accepted without an oath, like other rights, unlike the 'idda. Whenever he does not claim istibra', her child is attributed to him and is not negated. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his two opinions: He may negate it through li'an (imprecation), because it is a child (42) he does not accept, so it resembles the child of a wife. Our evidence is the words of the Almighty: {And those who accuse their wives...}. He specified wives with that, and because it is a child whose lineage is attributed to him from someone other than a wife, so he does not possess the right to negate it through li'an, just as if he had cohabited with a foreign woman through error, and the qafa (lineage experts) attributed her child to him. Furthermore, he has a path to negate the child other than li'an, so he does not need to negate it through li'an, thus it is not legislated. Also, because if he cohabits with his slave girl and does not seek istibra' from her, and she gives birth to a child, it is possible that it is from him, so it is not permissible for him to negate it, because lineage is attributed by possibility, so how would it be with the [appearance and existence] (43) of its cause! If he claims istibra' and she gives birth to two children, and he acknowledges one of them and negates the other, both are attributed to him; because it is not possible to deem one of them as his and the other from someone else, as they are a single pregnancy, and it is not permissible to negate the acknowledged child from him [despite his acknowledgement of it], so it is necessary to attribute both of them to him. Likewise, if his slave girl, whom he did not acknowledge having cohabited with, gives birth to twins, and he acknowledges one of them and negates the other.