It differs from a claim of lineage in two respects: first, a claim of lineage does not contradict the apparent state, whereas a claim of servitude contradicts it. Second, a claim of lineage establishes a right for the foundling, while a claim of servitude establishes a right against him, and therefore it is not accepted upon its mere assertion, just as if one were to claim the servitude of someone other than a foundling. So, if he has no evidence, the claim is dropped. If he has evidence, it will not be devoid of one of three cases: either the testimony is regarding possession (yad), ownership (milk), or birth (wiladah). If they testify to ownership or possession, it is not accepted except through the testimony of two men, or one man and two women. If they testify to birth, one woman or one man is accepted, because it is something men do not have access to (i.e., private). Then we examine: if the evidence testifies to possession, and it belongs to the finder, ownership is not established by it, because we have already known the cause of his possession. If it belongs to a stranger, he is judged to have possession, and his word is accepted, along with his oath, regarding ownership. If they testify to ownership, saying, 'We testify that he is his slave or his property,' it is judged accordingly, even if they do not state the cause of ownership, just as if they testified to the ownership of a house or a garment. If they testify that his slave-girl gave birth to him while in his ownership, it is judged in his favor, because his slave-girl does not give birth while in his ownership except to his property. If they testify that he is the son of his slave-girl, or that his slave-girl gave birth to him, without saying 'while in his ownership,' it is possible that ownership is established for him by that, just as in the statement 'in his ownership,' because his slave-girl is his property, and her offspring is his property, like her fatness. It is also possible that ownership is not established, because it is permissible that she gave birth to him before his ownership of her, in which case he would not be his, despite being the son of his slave-girl.

Section: If a claimant claims the servitude of a foundling after he has reached puberty, he is required to respond. If he denies it and the claimant has no evidence, the claim is not accepted. If he has evidence, judgment is passed in his favor. If the foundling had acted upon his own affairs before that by selling or purchasing, his transactions are voided, because it became apparent that he acted without the permission of his master. If there is no evidence and he confesses to servitude, we examine: if he had previously confessed to his own freedom, his confession to servitude is not accepted, because he has confessed to freedom, which is a right of Allah Almighty, so his retraction to invalidate it is not accepted. If he had not previously confessed to freedom, there are two possibilities: one of them,