Therefore, probity ('adala) is not considered in it. If he acknowledges something from which he derives a benefit, such as acknowledging the lineage of a wealthy person, it is accepted. If he acknowledges something that implies a claim against someone else, it is accepted regarding what is against him, but not regarding his property. It is similar to if he said to his wife: "I have obtained khul' (divorce) from you for a thousand [dirhams]." She becomes irrevocably divorced by his acknowledgement, and her word is accepted regarding the denial of the compensation. If he said to his slave: "You have purchased yourself from me for a thousand," it is likewise.

Section: The acknowledgement of a sick person for an heir is valid, according to one of the two narrations. The other [narration] is that it is not valid, because it is an acknowledgement for an heir, so it resembles an acknowledgement for him of property. The first is more correct, because at the time of acknowledgement, [the person] is not an heir, so it is valid, just as if he did not become an heir. This issue can be built upon the ruling on when one acknowledges for a non-heir who then becomes an heir; so whoever deems the acknowledgement valid there, deems it valid here, and whoever deems it void, deems it void. If he owns his cousin, and acknowledges during his illness that he had emancipated him during his health, and he is his closest agnate (asaba), he is emancipated and does not inherit from him. This is because making him an heir necessitates invalidating the acknowledgement of his freedom, and if the freedom is invalidated, the inheritance falls away, so making him an heir becomes a cause for invalidating his inheritance; thus, we strike out the inheritance alone. It is possible that he inherits, because at the time of the acknowledgement he is not an heir, so his acknowledgement for him is valid, like the preceding issue.

Section: The acknowledgement by a sick person of having made a slave woman pregnant is valid, because he has the right to do that, so he possesses the right to acknowledge it. Likewise, everything he has the right to do, he has the right to acknowledge. If he acknowledges that and then dies, if he clarifies that he impregnated her while she was in his possession, then his child is free by origin, and the mother is an umm walad (mother of his child) who is emancipated from the capital of the estate. If he said: "From a marriage, or from sexual intercourse involving doubt (wat' shubha)," the slave woman does not become an umm walad, and the child is emancipated. If it was from a marriage, then there is wala' (patronage) upon him because he was touched by slavery. If he said: "From sexual intercourse involving doubt," the slave woman does not become an umm walad. If the cause is not clarified, the slave woman remains owned, because the default state is slavery, and the cause of freedom is not established. It is possible that she becomes an umm walad, because the apparent state is that her impregnation occurred while in his possession, given that she is his owned property and the birth exists, and there is no wala' upon the child because the default is its absence, so it is not established except by evidence.