Abu Bakr said: The child does not belong to the one who had intercourse, but rather he belongs to the husband. This is what the madhhab of Abu Hanifa necessitates, because the child belongs to the marriage bed. Our argument is that the one who had intercourse was exclusively the one who had intercourse with her in a situation where lineage is joined to him, so it is joined to him just as if she were not a married woman, and just as if the wife of a missing person married after the judgment of his death and then he turned out to be alive. The report is specific to this, so we draw an analogy to it for what is of the same meaning. If his wife or slave woman is had intercourse with by mistake during a period of purity in which he did not have intercourse with her, and he abstains from her until she produces a child six months from the time of the intercourse, the child is joined to the one who had the intercourse, and is disavowed from the husband without lian (imprecation). According to the opinion of [Abu Bakr] and Abu Hanifa, it is joined to the husband because the child belongs to the marriage bed. If the one who had intercourse denies the intercourse, his word is accepted without an oath, and the lineage of the child is joined to the husband, because it is not possible to join it to the denier, and the claim of the husband to sever the lineage of the child is not accepted. If she produces the child less than six months from the time of the intercourse, it is joined to the husband in any case, because we know that it is not from the one who had intercourse. If both of them shared in having intercourse with her during a period of purity, and she produces a child that could be from either of them, it is joined to the husband because the child belongs to the marriage bed, and it is possible that it is from him. If the husband claims that it is from the one who had intercourse, some of our companions said: It is presented to the qafa (lineage experts) along with both of them, and it is joined to whoever they join it to. If they join it to the one who had intercourse, it is joined to him, and he (the husband) does not possess the right to deny it from himself, and it is disavowed from the husband without lian. If they join it to the husband, it is joined to him, and he does not possess the right to deny it by lian in the more correct of the two narrations. The other [narration] is that he has that right. If they join it to both of them, it is joined to both, and the one who had intercourse does not possess the right to deny it from himself. Does the husband possess the right to deny it by lian? There are two narrations. If no qafa are found, or the one who had intercourse denies the intercourse, or the matter is unclear to the qafa, it is joined to the husband, because the requirement for joining the lineage to him is established, and there is nothing found to contradict it, so it is necessary to establish its ruling. It is possible that