Al-Kawthaj narrated it from Ahmad regarding a woman who claimed a child: If she has brothers or a known lineage, she is not to be believed except with evidence. If she has no one to oppose her, no obstacle shall be placed between her and the child, because if she had family and a known lineage, her pregnancy would not have been hidden from them, and they would be harmed by attaching the lineage to her, due to the stigma it casts upon them for her having given birth without a husband, which is not the case if she has no family. It is possible that the lineage is not established by her claim under any circumstances. This is the opinion of Al-Thawri, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars whom we memorize from are in agreement that lineage is not established by a woman's claim because she is able to provide evidence of the birth, so her word is not accepted by itself, just as if her husband suspended her divorce upon her giving birth. Our evidence is that she is one of the two parents, so she is like the father; the possibility of providing evidence does not prevent the acceptance of the statement, just as in the case of a man, for he is capable of providing evidence that this child was born on his bed. If the claimant is a slave-woman, she is like a free woman, except that if we accept her claim regarding his lineage, we do not accept her word regarding his enslaved status, because we do not accept a claim in what harms him, just as we did not accept the claim regarding his disbelief if a disbeliever claims his lineage. The second category is when two or more people claim his lineage, and the discussion of this is in several sections:

One of them: If a Muslim and a disbeliever, or a free man and a slave, claim him, they are both equal. This is what Al-Shafi'i said. Abu Hanifa said: The Muslim is more entitled than the Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim), and the free man is more entitled than the slave, because there is harm upon the foundling in attaching him to the slave and the Dhimmi; therefore, attaching him to the free Muslim is more appropriate, just as if they disputed over custody. Our evidence is that if each one of them were alone, his claim would be valid, so when they dispute, they are equal in the claim, like free Muslims. The harm they mentioned is not realized, for we do not rule on his enslavement or his disbelief. Lineage does not resemble custody, by the proof that we prioritize in custody the wealthy and the urbanite, yet we do not prioritize them in the claim of lineage.