whom we know of the scholars; for we know that she conceived before he married her. If the husband is a child less than ten years of age, and his wife brings forth a child, it is not joined to him; because a child is not found from someone like him, and it is impossible for him to have intercourse. If he is ten years old and his wife becomes pregnant, her child is joined to him; based on the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Command them to pray when they are ten, and separate them in their beds." The Qadi said: It is joined to him if she brings it forth after nine and a half years as the duration of the pregnancy; because a girl can give birth at nine, so the same applies to the boy. Abu Bakr said: It is not joined to him until he reaches puberty; because a child is only from the semen, and it does not descend until he reaches puberty. We argue that this is an age where puberty is possible, so the child is joined to him, like the adult. It has been narrated that there were only twelve years between 'Amr ibn al-'As and his son 'Abd Allah. Furthermore, the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) command to separate them in their beds is proof of the possibility of intercourse, which is the cause of childbirth. As for the analogy of the boy to the girl, it is incorrect; for it is possible to derive pleasure from a girl at nine by custom, while it is not possible to derive pleasure from a boy at nine, and a girl may menstruate at nine, whereas we have not known of any boy reaching puberty at nine. If a man marries a woman in a single sitting, then divorces her in that same sitting before being absent from them, and then his wife brings forth a child six months from the time of the contract, or an Easterner marries a Westerner, then six months pass and she brings forth a child, it is not joined to him. Malik and al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: His lineage is joined to him; because the child is only joined to him by the contract and the duration of the pregnancy. Do you not see that you said: If the time of possibility passes, the child is joined, even if it is known that no intercourse took place on his part? We argue that the possibility of intercourse did not occur [in this] contract, so the child is not joined to him, like the wife of a one-year-old, or as if she gave birth to it in less than six months. This differs from what they analogized; because when the possibility is present, it is not known for certain that it is not from him, due to the possibility that he may have had intercourse with her without knowing, and we have no way to know the reality of the intercourse, so we hung the ruling upon the possibility of it in the marriage, and it is not