What is the ruling regarding the child's status if the first master is solvent and the second is insolvent in the case of impregnation by misconception?

Primary text

If the first master is solvent and the second is insolvent, the ruling is the same as the first scenario mentioned by Al-Qadi, with the caveat that the child of the insolvent second master is considered a slave because of the father's insolvency regarding the child's value. This assertion is incorrect because a child does not become enslaved due to the father's insolvency, similar to the child of someone deceived regarding the mother's status or intercourse under misconception. In all cases where we rule the child free due to misconception, this ruling is not contingent upon the father's solvency or insolvency. Solvency is only considered regarding the extension of manumission (*sarayat al-'itq*), whereas the freedom of this child is due to the misconception in the act of intercourse, rendering solvency irrelevant.