unless evidence is established for her regarding its crying out (at birth), because the original state is the absence of that. If its life is proven, and she claims that it was at a time when its equivalent could live, and he denies it, her statement is accepted along with her oath, because that is not known except from her side, and it is not possible to establish evidence regarding it, so her statement is accepted, like the completion of her waiting period (idda), and the occurrence of her menses and state of purity. If she produces evidence of its crying out, and the perpetrator produces evidence of its lack of crying out, her evidence is prioritized because it is affirmative, so it is prioritized over the negative evidence, because the affirmative evidence contains additional knowledge. If she claims that it died immediately after being miscarried, and he claims that it lived for a duration, her statement is accepted because the original state is the absence of its life. If each of them produces evidence for their claim, the perpetrator's evidence is prioritized, because it contains additional knowledge. If it is proven that it lived for a duration, and she claims that it remained in pain until it died, and he denies that, his statement is accepted because the original state is the absence of pain. If they both produce evidence, her evidence is prioritized because it contains additional knowledge. The testimony of one woman is accepted regarding the crying of the fetus, its miscarriage, its remaining in pain, and its mother remaining in pain, because these are matters that men do not have insight into, for usually, only women witness the birth, and the crying out is connected to it, and they witness the state of the woman and her delivery, and the state of the child, and they know its illnesses, diseases, strength, and weakness, unlike men. If the perpetrator confesses to its crying out, or to something that necessitates full blood money for it, the paternal relatives (aqila) do not bear it, and the blood money is from the perpetrator’s wealth, because the paternal relatives do not bear [the burden of] a confession. If it is from that for which the paternal relatives bear the ghurra (penalty), then the ghurra is upon the paternal relatives, and the remainder of the blood money is from the perpetrator's wealth.

Section: If two fetuses were separated from her, a male and a female, and one of them cried out, and they agreed on that but differed as to which one cried out, and the perpetrator said: "It is the female," while the heir of the fetus said: "It is the male," the statement of the perpetrator is accepted along with his oath, because the original state is the absence of crying out from the male, and the acquittal of his liability from what exceeds the blood money of the female. If one of them has evidence, he is prioritized by it, and if