excluding their children; so whenever he takes possession of one of them, he becomes free by way of him. This was narrated from 'Umar and Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with them both. Al-Hasan, Jabir ibn Zayd, 'Ata', al-Hakam, Hammad, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri, al-Layth, Abu Hanifah, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Sharik, and Yahya ibn Adam held this view. Malik permitted the emancipation of parents and offspring, however far they descend, and siblings, excluding their children. Al-Shafi'i did not consider any to be free except those in the direct line of lineage (amuday al-nasab). There is a report from Ahmad, mentioned by Abu al-Khattab, that is similar to this. [Dawud] and the people of the literalist school (Ahl al-Zahir) did not consider anyone free until he emancipates him, due to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "No child compensates his father for anything, unless he finds him enslaved, then purchases him and emancipates him." Narrated by Muslim (3). Our argument is what was narrated by al-Hasan from Samurah, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Whoever takes possession of a close relative by blood (dhu rahim mahram), he is free." Narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi (4), who said: It is a hasan (good) hadith. Furthermore, since he is a close relative by blood, he becomes free upon him by virtue of ownership, just like those in the direct line of lineage, and like siblings according to Malik. As for his saying: "until he purchases him and emancipates him," it is possible that he intended that he purchases him and frees him through the act of purchasing him, just as it is said: "He struck him and killed him," while the striking is the killing; this is because since emancipation is sometimes achieved through purchase and sometimes not, it is permissible to append its attribute to it, just as one says: "He struck him and took his head off." Whenever he becomes free upon him, his wala' belongs to him, because he emancipates from his wealth by virtue of his own action, so the wala' belongs to him, just as if he had directly performed the emancipation. This is the same whether he obtained possession of him through purchase, gift, spoils of war, inheritance, or otherwise. We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding this.

Section: There is no disagreement that prohibited relatives (maharim) who are not close blood relatives (dhu rahim) do not become free upon their master, such as the foster mother, the foster brother, the stepdaughter, the mother-in-law, and the stepdaughter. However, it was reported from al-Hasan,