the pledger dies, she becomes free. If this sold slave girl returns to the pledger through inheritance, sale, gift, or otherwise, or if she was sold in her entirety and then returned to him, the status of umm al-walad (mother of a child) is established for her. Malik said: If the slave girl leaves the pledger and comes to him, she exits the pledge, and if he scales the wall to reach her, he takes her child and she is sold. Our position is that she is an umm al-walad, and the status of the pledge does not remain in effect for her, just as if the intercourse had occurred prior to the pledge. Or we may say: It is a factor that contradicts the pledge at its inception, so it contradicts it during its continuation, like freedom.

Section: If the intercourse is with the permission of the mortgagee, she exits the pledge, and the mortgagee has no claim, because he granted permission for the cause of what contradicts his right, so it was permission for that thing itself. We know of no disagreement regarding this. If she does not become pregnant, she remains a pledge as she was. If it is said: He only granted permission for intercourse, not for impregnation, we say: Intercourse is what leads to impregnation, and that is not dependent upon his choice, so permission for its cause is permission for the thing itself. If he grants permission and then retracts it, he is like one who did not grant permission. If they disagree regarding the permission, the word is with the one who denies it. If the mortgagee acknowledges the permission but denies that the child resulted from the permitted intercourse, or says: "He is from a husband or from adultery," the word is with the pledger, provided four conditions are met: First, the mortgagee acknowledges the permission. Second, he acknowledges the intercourse. Third, he acknowledges the birth. Fourth, he acknowledges that a duration has passed since the intercourse in which it is possible to give birth. At that point, his denial is not considered, and the word is with the pledger without an oath, because we did not link the child to him based on his claim, but rather by the law. If he denies any of these conditions—for example, by saying: "I did not grant permission," or "I granted permission but intercourse did not occur," or "A duration long enough for her to deliver the pregnancy has not passed since she was had intercourse with," or "This is not her child, she borrowed him"—then his word is accepted, because the origin is the absence of all that, and the pledge remains valid until evidence is produced. This is the school of al-Shafi'i.

Section: If he granted permission to strike her, and he struck her and she perished, there is no liability upon him, because that resulted from what was permitted, just like the resulting pregnancy from intercourse.

Section: When the pledger confesses to the intercourse, there are three possible scenarios; one of them is that he confesses to it