one of them specifically, regarding the obligation of the mahr for her and the value of her half for his partner, along with the disagreement regarding that. As for the one who did not conceive from his intercourse, if he was the first, then the mahr is due to her from him. If he was the second, he has had intercourse with the umm walad of another. If the kitāba remains, the mahr is due to her from him as well; if the kitāba has been annulled, the mahr belongs to the one who made her an umm walad, and half of her value has become due to the second from the first. Regarding the value of half the child, there are two narrations. If the mahr belongs to the first, they shall offset each other by the amount of the lesser of the two rights; if the mahr belongs to her, he shall seek his right from the one who made her pregnant. As for the judge, he said regarding this category: the ruling of the first is like the ruling in it if he were alone in the intercourse, according to the detail and length that has passed. As for the second, if he had intercourse with her after her birth from the first, we look: if he had intercourse with her after the ruling that she is an umm walad for the first, then the mahr of her like is due from him. If he had annulled the kitāba regarding himself due to her inability, the mahr belongs to him because she is his umm walad; if he had not annulled it, the mahr is between him and her in two halves. If he had intercourse with her after the cessation of the kitāba regarding him, and before the ruling that she is an umm walad for the first, half of her mahr is remitted from him because half of her is a slave for him, and the half is due from him to her if the first had not annulled the kitāba, or to him if he had annulled it. If the first was insolvent, his share of her is an umm walad for him, and both mahrs are due to her from them both. The ruling regarding when she becomes unable or performs the payment has already preceded. As for if the child is from the second, the ruling regarding the intercourse of the first is like the ruling in it if he had intercourse alone and did not make her pregnant. As for the second, if he is solvent, his partner's share is valued against him upon the inability; if they both annul the kitāba, we value it against him, and she becomes an umm walad for him. If the second is content to remain upon the kitāba, we value the first's share against him, and she becomes entirely an umm walad for him, and half of her is a mukātab, and the first seeks from the second half of the mahr and half of the value of the child, according to one of the two narrations. The second seeks from the first half of the mahr, so they offset each other with it if it remains upon them both. If the second is insolvent, the ruling in it is as if she gave birth from the first and he was insolvent; there is no difference between the two issues. The third category: if it is possible that the child is from each one of them, then the qāfa are to be consulted with them, and he is to be joined to whomever they join him to from them. Whoever he is joined to, his ruling is the ruling of what if it were known that he is from him without qāfa.