it is dropped due to the denial of the one to whom it is acknowledged. Regarding the child, there are two views: one is that he is free, so each of them claims against the other half of the value of the child. The second view is that half of him is free, so he acknowledges that half of the child is owned by his partner, and thus the two children are shared between them without an oath. According to the first view, they offset each other if the value of the two children is equal, and there is no oath in either situation, and whichever one of them dies, his share is emancipated, and its wala' (right of inheritance/patronage) belongs to him. If one of them is wealthy and the other indigent, the wealthy one acknowledges to the indigent one half of the value of the slave woman and half of the dowry of her like, and he claims against him the entire dowry and the value of the child. The indigent one acknowledges to the wealthy one half of the dowry and half of the value of the child. Thus, the acknowledgment of the wealthy one to the indigent one for half the value of the slave woman falls away because he does not claim it, nor does the other confirm it for him. They offset each other regarding the dowry because they are equal in it, and the indigent one pays the wealthy one half the value of the child due to his acknowledgment of it. He takes an oath regarding the surplus he claims against him, because he claimed against him the entire value of the child, while he only acknowledged half of it for him. The wealthy one takes an oath for him regarding the half of the value of the child that the indigent one claimed against him. As for the slave woman, the share of the wealthy one of her is umm walad without any disagreement between them regarding it, and they dispute over the remainder of her. If the wealthy one dies first, his share is emancipated, and its wala' belongs to his heirs; then when the indigent one dies, the rest of her is emancipated. If the indigent one dies first, nothing of her is emancipated; then when the wealthy one dies, all of her is emancipated. It also follows, according to the opinion of Abu Bakr, that lots should be drawn between them regarding the half in which there is disagreement.

Section: If they both have intercourse with her together and she brings forth a child, this falls into three categories. One of them is that it is impossible for the child to be from either one of them, such as if she brings him forth after her istibra' (period of abstinence to establish lack of pregnancy) from both of them, or after four years since each of them had intercourse with her, or before the passage of six months since each of them had intercourse with her. In this case, the child is disavowed from both of them, and he is owned by them, and his ruling is the same as the ruling of his mother regarding emancipation upon her fulfilling payment. If each of them claims the istibra', it is accepted from him, because the claim of istibra' regarding a slave woman is like the li'an (imprecation) regarding a free woman. The second category is that the child is specifically from one of them to the exclusion of his partner, and the ruling in this is like the ruling in the case where she gives birth from one of them specifically, in terms of the obligation of the dowry for her and the value of half of her for his partner, along with the disagreement regarding that.