if one of them were to say, 'I have relinquished my share,' it would be relinquished; yet if ownership were firmly established, it would not vanish by that, like the heir. Our position is that he possesses a shubha (legal ambiguity) of ownership in it, so the hadd is not binding upon him, similar to having intercourse with [a slave girl in whom he has a share]. The verse is specified for the case of having intercourse with a jointly owned slave girl and the slave girl of one's son, so we draw an analogy to this. Denying ownership is not correct, because the ownership of the disbelievers has ceased, and it cannot cease except for an owner. Furthermore, its division is valid, and the participants in the spoils possess the right to demand its division; thus, it is like the wealth of an heir. It is only that there are many participants in the spoils, so the share of the person committing the intercourse is small and not established in any specific item. The Imam had the authority to designate the share of each person without their choice; therefore, it is permissible for it to lapse by relinquishment, unlike inheritance. The weakness of ownership does not remove it from being a shubha regarding the hadd, which is averted by shubuhat (ambiguities); for this reason, the hadd lapses by the slightest thing. Even if it is not the reality of ownership, it is a shubha. If this is established, he is subject to ta'zir (discretionary punishment), but the ta'zir does not reach the level of the hadd, according to what we have previously mentioned, and the mahr of her like is taken from him and thrown into the division. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: The amount of his share of it is dropped from the mahr, and he is liable for the remainder, as if he had intercourse with a slave girl jointly owned by him and someone else. This is not correct, because if we were to drop his share from him and take the rest and throw it into the spoils, then divide it among everyone while he is among them, a portion of someone else's share would return to him. Also, the amount of his share may not be possible to determine due to the smallness of the mahr and the multitude of participants in the spoils. Then, if we take it, if we were to divide it separately among those other than him, it would not be possible, and if we were to mix it with the rest of the spoils, then divide it among everyone, he would take a share from that in which he has no right. If this is established, then if she bears a child from him, the child is free and his lineage is attached to him. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, whereas Abu Hanifah said: He is a slave, and his lineage is not attached to him, because the participants in the spoils only gain ownership upon division, so his intercourse occurred in other than his ownership. Our position is that it is an act of intercourse in which the hadd has lapsed due to a shubha of ownership, so lineage is attached, like having intercourse with the slave girl of his son, and what they mentioned is not accepted; moreover, it is invalidated by having intercourse with the slave girl of his son. It is different from zina, for that necessitates the hadd. If this is established, the slave girl becomes an umm walad (mother of a child) for him immediately. Al-Shafi'i said: She does not become an umm walad for him immediately, because she is not his property. If he comes to own her afterward...