Section: If she gives birth to a child [after four] (15) years since he died, or became separated from her by divorce or annulment, or the expiration of her waiting period if it were revocable, her child shall not be affiliated with him. This is because we know that she conceived him after the cessation of the marriage and the final separation from him, and because she has become a stranger to him; thus, she is like all other unrelated women. The implication of al-Khiraqi’s statement is that her waiting period does not expire by it, because (16) the child is disavowed from him without li'an (imprecation), so her waiting period does not expire from him by its delivery, just as if she gave birth to it in less than six months since he married her. Abu al-Khattab said: Does the waiting period expire by it? There are two views. Al-Qadi mentioned that her waiting period expires by it, which is the school of al-Shafi'i, because it is a child that could possibly be his after his marriage, such as if he had intercourse with her by mistake or renewed their marriage contract; therefore, the waiting period must expire by it, even if the child is not affiliated with him, like a child disavowed by li'an. In this, it differs from the child she delivered in less than six months, for that child is definitely disavowed from him. Then they contradicted their own statement by saying: If she remarried during her waiting period and gave birth to a child in less than six months from the time the second husband consummated the marriage, and more than four years from the time she separated from the first, the child is disavowed from both, and her waiting period does not expire by its delivery from either of them. This is more correct; for the possibility of the child being his was not sufficient to establish the child's lineage from him, despite the fact that lineage is established by mere possibility, so it is even more appropriate that it would not suffice for the expiration of the waiting period. What they mentioned is invalidated by what they conceded. The distinction they mentioned between this and the child delivered before (18) six months is not correct; for it is possible that he had relations with her by mistake before their marriage, or through a marriage other than this one in which she delivered the child, so they are the same. As for the child disavowed by li'an, we have negated the child from the husband in relation to him, and we have negated its legal status as being his in relation to her, to the point that we have mandated the prescribed punishment (hadd) upon one who falsely accuses her or her child, and the expiration of her waiting period is one of the legal rulings related to her, not to him; therefore, it is established (20).