If one of them refuses to take an oath, judgment is passed against him. If the disagreement regarding this occurs before she becomes incapacitated, and she makes a claim against one of them, then his statement is accepted along with his oath. If she makes a claim against one of them without specifying which one, the claim is not heard.

Section: If both of them cause her to become pregnant, and they agree on who was the first among them, then according to the view of al-Khiraqi, she becomes an umm walad (mother of a child) to him, and his child is free and his lineage is joined to him. The disagreement regarding this is the same as the disagreement regarding when one of them alone causes her to become pregnant. As for the second, according to the view of al-Khiraqi, he has had intercourse with the umm walad of another under a misconception, and caused her to become pregnant, so she does not become an umm walad to him because she is the slave of another; this is similar to the case where one sells her and then causes her to become pregnant. Her dowry is due to her because the kitabah (deed of manumission) has not been voided, and the child is free because it is an act of intercourse under a misconception, and he owes her value to the first [master] because he has caused him to lose her bondage; it was his right that the child should be a slave to him, with the same status as his mother, so he owes his value in this state. We have already mentioned the disagreement regarding the obligation of half the value of the first; if we say it is obligatory, they perform a mutual set-off [for what each] of them owes the other in the amount they are equal in, and the one with the excess recovers his excess. The value is considered as of the day of birth because it is the first moment in which appraisal is possible. Al-Qadi mentioned four conditions in this issue: the first is that they are both wealthy, in which case the rule is as we mentioned, except that he made the dowry owed by the second due to the first. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and it is incorrect because the kitabah is not voided by the establishment of umm walad status, and the dowry of the mukatabah is hers, not her master's; furthermore, if her master were to have intercourse with her, the dowry would be due to her, and thus, him not owning the dowry owed by someone else is even more appropriate. Also, because it is compensation for her benefit, it belongs to her, like her wages. The second condition is that the first is wealthy and the second is indigent; it is exactly the same as the condition before it. Al-Qadi said: "Except that his child remains a slave due to his inability to pay his value." This is incorrect because a child does not become a slave due to the indigence of his father, as evidenced by the child of one deceived by a slave woman, and one who has intercourse under a misconception. In every case where we rule for the freedom of the child, it does not differ based on indigence or wealth.