to have sexual intercourse with her, and a woman is not lawful for two men. If he has intercourse with her, there is no hadd (prescribed punishment) upon him. Ahmad stipulated this. Dawud said: He is to be subjected to the hadd. Some of the Shafi'is said: If his son had intercourse with her, he would be subjected to the hadd because she is permanently forbidden to him. Our evidence is that he has a subha (legal semblance/doubt) regarding her, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "You and your wealth belong to your father." The hadd is averted by doubts, and because a father is not killed for the murder of his son, and retribution (qisas) is a human right. Thus, if it (retribution) falls away due to the subha of ownership, then the hadd, which is a right of Allah the Almighty, falls away a fortiori. Furthermore, he is not punished for the theft of his son's wealth, nor is he subjected to the hadd for slandering him; thus, he is likewise not subjected to the hadd for committing zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) with his slave girl. If this is established, she becomes permanently forbidden to the son. If the son had previously had intercourse with her, she becomes permanently forbidden to both of them. If she does not conceive from the father, the son's ownership of her does not cease, and he is not obligated to pay her value. Abu Hanifa said: He is liable for her guarantee (damānah) because he has ruined her for him and prevented him from having intercourse with her, similar to if he had killed her. Our evidence is that he did not remove her from his ownership, and her value did not decrease, so it is similar to if his wife had breastfed her, as she becomes forbidden to the son, yet her value is not incumbent upon him. If she conceives from him, the child is free, and lineage is established through him because he is the result of intercourse for which the hadd is not incumbent due to the subha, so he resembles the child of a jointly-owned slave girl, and the slave girl becomes an umm al-walad (mother of a child) to the father. Shafi'i said, in one of his two opinions: She does not become an umm al-walad because she is not owned by him, so she resembles if he had intercourse with the slave girl of a stranger due to a subha. Our evidence is that she conceived from him as a free person due to the ownership, so she resembles the jointly-owned slave girl if he is wealthy. Our colleagues said: The father is not obligated to pay the value of the slave girl, the value of her child, or her mahr (dower). Shafi'i said: He is obligated for all of that if it is ruled that she is an umm al-walad. This is based on a fundamental principle, which is that the father may take whatever he wishes from the wealth of his son, and that the son has no right to demand from his father a debt owed to him, nor the value of destroyed property, whereas they hold the contrary.