He attributed the son's wealth to his father using the particle of possession (lam al-milk) and entitlement, which indicates that it is his property. We say: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not intend actual legal ownership, evidenced by the fact that he attributed the child to him, yet the child is not his property; and he attributed his wealth to him in the same context as attributing the child. A single thing cannot be owned by two owners in reality at the same time. Ownership is proven for the son in reality, evidenced by the lawfulness of his having intercourse with his slave girls, his disposal of his wealth, and the validity of his selling, gifting, and emancipating. Furthermore, if the son died, his father would not inherit from him except for what was decreed for him; if it were his wealth, he would be exclusively entitled to it. And if the father died, his heirs would not inherit the wealth of his son. Moreover, neither Hajj, Zakah, nor Jihad become obligatory upon the father due to the wealth of his son. Thus, it is known that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only intended a figurative expression by likening it to his wealth in some of its rulings.

Once this is established, there is no hadd punishment upon the father due to the ambiguity (shubha), because if absolute ownership is not established, then it is at least an ambiguity that wards off the hadd, for hadd punishments are warded off by ambiguities. However, he is subject to disciplinary punishment (ta'zir), because he had intercourse with a slave girl he does not own, an unlawful act of intercourse, so he is subject to ta'zir just like in the case of intercourse with a jointly owned slave girl. There is another opinion: he is not subject to ta'zir, because his son's wealth is like his own. But this is not valid, because his own wealth is permissible for him to use without blame, whereas in this instance of intercourse, he is a transgressor and blameworthy. If she becomes pregnant by him, the child is free, because it is from an act of intercourse where the hadd was warded off due to the ambiguity of ownership, so he is free, like the child of a jointly owned slave girl. The father is not liable for the child's value, because the slave girl becomes his property through the act of intercourse; therefore, her pregnancy occurs while she is his property, and she becomes an umm al-walad for him, becoming free upon his death and transferring into his ownership, making it lawful for him to have intercourse with her thereafter. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and Al-Shafi'i in one of his two statements. In the other, he said: She does not become an umm al-walad for him, nor does he own her, because he made her pregnant while she was not in his ownership, so he is like a stranger. Also, the establishment of the rulings of istilad (motherhood-of-a-child status) was only by consensus when he makes his own slave girl pregnant, and this one is not his slave girl, nor is she in the same category as his slave girl, for she is forbidden to him, so it is necessary that this ruling not be established for her. And because the base principle is slavery, it remains upon the original status.