Then the child is free by origin, and there is no wala' (patronage) upon him, and his mother is an umm walad. If he says: "It was in marriage," then the wala' is upon the child, because slavery touched him, and the slave woman is a slave, because she conceived from a slave. If he says: "From an ambiguous intercourse," then the child is free by origin, and the slave woman is a slave, because she conceived from him (50) while not in his possession. If the other woman claims that she is the one whom he procreated, his statement is accepted with his oath, because the original state is the absence of procreation, so it is similar to if she claimed that without his acknowledgement of anything. If he takes the oath, she and her child remain slaves, and when he dies, his child whom he acknowledged inherits from him. If she was a slave woman who had become an umm walad, she is also emancipated. If she did not become an umm walad, she is emancipated upon her child if he is the sole heir; if there is someone else with him, she is emancipated from her in proportion to what he owned. If he dies before clarifying, his heir takes his place in the clarification, because he takes his place in attaching lineage and other matters. When he clarifies, it is as if the person from whom he inherited had clarified. If the heir does not know the manner of procreation, there are two views regarding the slave woman: one is that she remains a slave, because slavery is the original state, so it is not removed by probability. The second is that she is emancipated, because the apparent state is that she gave birth to him while in his possession, as he acknowledged her child while she was in his possession. This is explicitly stated by al-Shafi'i. If there is no heir, or there is an heir but he does not specify, it is presented [to the qafa] (51). If they attach one of them to him, his lineage is established, and the ruling is as if the heir had specified. If there are no qafa, or there are but they do not know, lots are drawn between the two children, and one of them is emancipated by lot, because the lot has a role in establishing freedom. The analogy of the school is the establishment of his lineage and his inheritance, based on what we mentioned regarding the one before it. Al-Shafi'i said: Neither lineage nor inheritance is established. They differed regarding the inheritance; al-Muzani said: The share of a son is withheld (52), because we are certain of an inheriting son. They have another view: Nothing is withheld, because it is not hoped that it will be clarified. Abu Hanifah said: Half of each one is emancipated, and he is to strive for his freedom (sa'ay) for the remainder, and they do not inherit. Ibn Abi Layla said the same, except that he makes the inheritance between them in two halves, and they pay it out of their striving (sa'ayah). The discussion on the division of freedom and striving will come in (53) [the chapter of] Emancipation, if God Almighty wills.