the essence of the cotton, and only its form has changed. Flour consists of parts of the wheat that have become separated, and the bird is the parts of the egg that have transformed, so it is as if the evidence said: "This is his yarn, his flour, and his bird." This is not the case for the child and the fruit, for they are other than the mother and the tree. If they testified that this egg is from his bird, it would not be judged for him until they said: "She laid it during his ownership," because the egg is not the bird, but rather it is from its growth, so it is like the child. The school of al-Shafi'i regarding this entire section is as we have mentioned.

Section: If there is a house in the possession of Zayd, and 'Amr claims it, and he brings evidence that he bought it from Khalid for a named price which he paid to him, or that Khalid gifted that house to him, his evidence is not accepted for this unless they testify that Khalid sold it to him or gifted it to him while he owned it, or they testify that it is the house of 'Amr which he bought from Khalid, or they testify that he sold it or gifted it to him and handed it over to him. The evidence is not heard by mere purchase and gift because a person may sell what he does not own and gift it, so their testimony regarding it is not accepted. However, if the testimony for the seller's ownership is joined to that, or they testify to the ownership of the buyer, or they testify to the handover, then they have testified to the precedence of possession or ownership for the claimant or for the one who sold it to him, so the apparent state is that it is his property because possession indicates ownership. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and we have only accepted it—even though it is testimony to past ownership—because they testified to the ownership along with the cause, and the apparent state is its continuity, unlike when the cause is not mentioned.

Section: If there is a child in a man's possession who cannot speak for himself, and he claims that he is his slave, his claim is accepted, and he is not prevented from him because possession is evidence of ownership. As long as the child cannot speak for himself, he is like an animal or chattel, unless it is known that the cause of his possession is other than ownership, such as if he found him as a foundling (luqata), then his claim to his enslavement is not accepted because the foundling is judged to be free. As for others, the evidence of ownership has been found without a challenger, so he is judged to be a slave. When he reaches maturity and claims freedom, his claim is not accepted because he was already judged...