a mawla (freedman), then he bears the blood money (ya'qil), according to the apparent statement of Ahmad. This was stated by al-Qadi. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: He does not bear it, because he is a father or a child, so he does not bear it, just as if he were not in that position. Our argument is that he is a son of a paternal uncle, or a mawla, so he bears the blood money, as if he were not a child; this is because this kinship or wala' (clientage) is a cause that is sufficient for the ruling independently. Thus, when it is found along with what the ruling is not established by, it establishes it, just as when it is found with a mere relative (rahim). Furthermore, its ruling is established along with other kinship, as evidenced by the fact that he has guardianship over her marriage, even though the son does not have guardianship over the marriage according to them.

Section: All other agnates are part of the 'aqilah, whether they are distant or close in lineage, as well as the mawla and his agnates, and the mawla of a mawla and his agnates, and others. This is the opinion of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, al-Nakha'i, Hammad, Malik, and al-Shafi'i. I do not know of any disagreement from others; this is because they are agnates who inherit the wealth if there is no heir closer than them, so they enter into the bearing of blood money, like a close relative. It is not a requirement that they be current heirs; rather, whenever they would inherit if not for exclusion, they bear the blood money, because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) decreed the blood money to be upon the agnates of the woman, whoever they may have been, and they do not inherit from her except what remains after her primary heirs. Furthermore, the mawali (freedmen/clients) are among the agnates, so they resemble those related by blood.

Section: Anyone who is not an agnate does not enter into the bearing of blood money, and the mawla from below (the freedman) does not bear it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and the companions of Malik. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his two opinions: He does bear it, because they are two people, one of whom bears the burden for the other, so the other bears it for him, like two brothers. Our argument is that he is neither his agnate nor an heir, so he does not bear it for him, just as in the case of a stranger. What they mentioned is invalidated by the case of a male with a female, an adult with a child, and a sane person with an insane one.

Section: The mawla of muwalat (clientage by contract) does not bear blood money, and he is the one who enters into a contract with a man where he grants him his allegiance and support, nor does the halif (ally), who is a man who makes an alliance with another to support one another in repelling injustice and to join forces against