For if he retracts his confession, it is not accepted, so there is no benefit in requiring him to take an oath. The followers of al-Shafi'i disagreed regarding requiring him to take an oath, based on two perspectives. The correct view in my opinion is that if he confesses to manumission, he is not required to take an oath; because this operates in the same manner as his saying: "You are free," so he does not need an oath, just as if he had explicitly stated it. If he confesses to usurpation or an offense, and the one from whom it was usurped or the victim of the offense does not claim this, then the statement of the pledger is not considered, according to a single view. But if they both claim it, then the oath is incumbent upon them; because the right belongs to them, and their retraction of it is acceptable, so the oath lies upon them, like all other claims. If he confesses to the istilad (having a child from) his slave girl, then the oath is incumbent upon him; because the benefit of her returns to him from the lawfulness of enjoying her and the ownership of her service, so the oath is upon him, unlike in the case before it. If we say: The word is with the mortgagee, then the oath is incumbent upon him in every case; because if he were to admit, the right would be established in the pledge, and his oath is regarding the denial of knowledge, because it is regarding the denial of another's act. So if he swears, the claim falls away in relation to him, but its ruling remains in effect in relation to the pledger, in such a way that if the pledge returns to him, the ruling of his confession would become manifest in it. And if the victim of the offense or the one from whom it was usurped wishes to hold him liable for damages immediately, they may do so; because he prevented the fulfillment of the offense by his disposal [of the property], so the compensation for the injury became incumbent upon him, just as if he had killed her.

Section: It is not permissible for the mortgagee to have intercourse with the pledged slave girl by consensus, because of the saying of God Almighty: "Except with their wives or those their right hands possess." She is neither a wife nor one possessed by the right hand. If he has intercourse with her, knowing of the prohibition, the prescribed punishment (hadd) is upon him; because he has no doubt regarding it. For the pledge is a security for the debt, and that has no entry into the permissibility of intercourse; because intercourse with a hired woman necessitates the hadd despite his ownership of her usufruct, so the pledge is even more so. If he claims ignorance of the prohibition, and it is possible that he is telling the truth because he is someone who grew up in the desert or is a recent convert to Islam, then no hadd is upon him, and his child is free; because he had intercourse with her believing it was permissible for him to do so, so it is as if he had intercourse with her thinking she was his own slave girl. He is liable for the value of her child on the day of birth; because his belief in the lawfulness prevented the child from being born into slavery, and thus he caused the loss of the child's servile status to her master, so its value became incumbent upon him, like one deceived regarding the free status of a slave girl. If it is not possible that he is telling the truth, such as one who grew up in the lands