If he retracts her tadbir while she is pregnant, the child does not follow her in the retraction; because tadbir is a form of emancipation, and emancipation is built upon prevalence and transmission, and retraction from it is the opposite of that, so the child does not follow her in it. This is similar to the case of a man who has twin sons born to him; if he acknowledges one of them, both are binding upon him, and if he denies one of them, the other is not denied. If he retracts for both of them, it is permissible, and if he retracts for one of them without the other, it is permissible. If he performs tadbir for the child without the mother, or for the mother without her child, it is permissible; because it is permissible for him to emancipate each one of them without the other, so it is more appropriate that it is permissible for him to perform tadbir for one without the other. Furthermore, it is a suspension of emancipation upon a condition, so it is permissible in one without the other, just like suspension upon entering the house. If he performs tadbir for his slave woman, then says: "If you enter the house, I have retracted my tadbir," it is not valid; because it is not valid to suspend a retraction upon a condition. If he says: "Whenever you give birth to a child, I have retracted my tadbir regarding him," it is not valid for the same reason.

Section: If the mudabbarah and the heirs of her master disagree regarding her child, she says: "I gave birth to them after my tadbir, so they are free with me." The heirs say: "Rather, you gave birth to them before your tadbir, so they are slaves owned by us." The statement is that of the heirs along with their oaths; because the original status is the continuity of their slavery and the absence of freedom, so if there is no evidence, the statement is that of the party whose claim agrees with the original status.

Section: The earnings of the mudabbar during his master's lifetime belong to his master, who is entitled to take them from him; because tadbir does not fall outside its similarity to a bequest of emancipation, or the suspension of it upon a condition, or the status of umm al-walad, and the earnings of all these belong to their master, so the mudabbar is the same. If he and his master's heirs disagree regarding what is in his possession after his emancipation, he says: "I earned it after my freedom." They say: "Rather, before that." The statement is his; because it is in his possession, and their ownership of it was not established, unlike the child, for the child was a slave to them. If each of them provides evidence for his claim, the evidence of the heirs is prioritized according to those who prioritize the evidence of the outsider, and the evidence of the mudabbar is prioritized according to those who prioritize the evidence of the insider. If the mudabbar acknowledges that it was in his possession during his master's lifetime, then his ownership was renewed after his death, the statement is that of the heir; because the original status is with them.