pregnancy after the bequest, so it is possible that she became pregnant with it after it, and thus it does not encompass it. The original principle (al-asl) is the non-existence of pregnancy at the time of the bequest, so we do not establish it through doubt. Thus, it becomes the property of the testator if she gives birth to it during his lifetime. If she gives birth to it after him, and we say: pregnancy has a legal status, then the same applies. And if we say: it has no legal status, then it belongs to the heirs if she gave birth to it before acceptance, and there is no proof if she delivers it after it. In every situation where the child belongs to the legatee, it becomes emancipated upon him, because it is his son, and the patronage (Wala') over him belongs to his father, because he was emancipated upon him through kinship. His mother remains a slave girl whose marriage is annulled by ownership, and she does not become a mother of a child (umm walad), because she did not conceive him from a free man within his ownership.

The third scenario is that she becomes pregnant after the death of the testator and before acceptance. This is known by her delivering it more than six months from the time of death. If she delivers it before acceptance as well, it belongs to the heir, according to the apparent view of the school, because ownership is only established for the legatee after acceptance. According to the other perspective, it belongs to the legatee. If she delivers it after acceptance, the same applies; because the apparent view is that pregnancy has a legal status, so it occurs within (10) the ownership of the heir. According to the other perspective, it belongs to the legatee, and based on this, he is free and has no patronage (Wala') over him, because she is an umm walad due to her conceiving him from a free man within his ownership, so it becomes as if she became pregnant with him after acceptance. The school of al-Shafi'i in this section is close to what we have said. Abu Hanifa said: If she delivers it after the death of the testator, it enters into the bequest in every case, because it settles and becomes binding with death, so it must extend to the child, like taking as a concubine (istilad). For us [our evidence is] that it is a separate addition occurring after the contract of the bequest, so it does not enter into it, like earnings, and when someone bequeaths the emancipation of a slave girl and she gives birth. It differs from istilad, because that has a preponderance and an extending effect (sirayah). This ramification applies when the slave girl comes out of the third [of the estate]. If she does not come out of the third, he gains ownership of her to the extent of the third, and the marriage is annulled, because the ownership of a part of her annuls the marriage, just like the ownership of all of her. In every situation where the child belongs to his father, it belongs to him (11) from her here to the extent of what he owned of its mother, and the emancipation extends to the rest of it if he is affluent,