difference regarding whether he is to be disciplined (ta'zir), for the reason we mentioned in the argument of Abu Thawr. Then, it does not lack one of two situations: either she does not become pregnant by him, in which case she remains under their joint ownership, and he is liable for half of her proper dower (mahr al-mithl), because it is an act of intercourse in which the hadd punishment was dropped due to the existence of a doubt (shubhah), thus necessitating the proper dower, just as if he had intercourse with her thinking she was his wife. This is regardless of whether she was a consenting party or coerced, for the reason we mentioned, and because intercourse with another person's slave-woman necessitates the dower even if she consented, for the dower belongs to her master, and it does not lapse by her consent, just as if she were disciplined for the cutting of one of her limbs. The amount due is half the dower in proportion to the partner's ownership in her. The second situation is that he makes her pregnant, and she delivers a fetus in which some human features are discernible; she thereby becomes an Umm Walad (mother of a child) to the one who had intercourse with her, just as if she were exclusively his, and she departs from the partner's ownership through this, just as she would depart through emancipation. This is the case regardless of whether the person who had intercourse is wealthy or insolvent, because the act of making her pregnant (ilad) is stronger than emancipation. He becomes liable for half of her value, because he removed half of her from the partner's ownership, so he became liable for her value, [just as if he removed her through emancipation or destruction; if he is wealthy he pays it, and if he is insolvent it remains a liability upon his conscience], just as if he had destroyed her. The child is free and its lineage is linked to its father, because it resulted from intercourse in a subject-matter in which he holds a proprietary right, so it resembles a case where he had intercourse with his own wife. The judge (al-Qadi) said: "The correct view in my opinion is that his partner's share is not appraised against him if he is insolvent; rather, half of her becomes an Umm Walad, and half of her remains a slave girl (qinn) in the possession of the partner; because making her pregnant is like emancipation, and it follows the same course regarding appraisal and spreading. Therefore, wealth is considered in its spreading, just like in emancipation." This is also the view of Abu al-Khattab and the school of al-Shafi'i. According to this, if she gives birth, it is possible that the entire child is free, due to the impossibility of a child being conceived from a free man and a slave, and it is possible that half of the child is free and half is a slave, like its mother, because half of its mother is an Umm Walad and half is a slave to someone other than the father, so half of the child would be free and half would be a slave, like the child of a woman who is partially emancipated. By this, it is clarified that it does not necessitate the impossibility of the child being conceived from a free person and a slave. The argument of al-Khiraqi is that since part of her is an Umm Walad, the whole of her is an Umm Walad, just as if the one who had intercourse were wealthy. This differs from emancipation, for the status of Umm Walad is stronger, which is why it takes effect from the entire estate, including that of the sick person, the child, and the insane person, whereas emancipation is the opposite of this.