and Ibn Sirin and Sharik, that it is not permissible to sell a foster brother. It is narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that he disliked it. The first view is more correct. Al-Zuhri said: The Sunnah has proceeded that the foster brother and sister may be sold. Furthermore, there is no text regarding their emancipation, nor are they in the meaning of the one mentioned in the text, so they remain upon the original ruling (asl). Moreover, there is no blood relationship between them, no mutual inheritance, and he is not obligated to provide for their maintenance, so they resemble the stepdaughter and the mother-in-law.

Section: If he takes possession of his child born of fornication (zina), he does not become free upon him according to the apparent statement of Ahmad, because the rulings of a child are not established regarding him—namely, inheritance, being an impediment to others (hajb), mahram status, the obligation of maintenance, and the establishment of guardianship (wilayah) over him. It is possible that he does become free, because he is part of him in reality, and the ruling of the prohibition of marriage has been established regarding him. For this reason, if he were to take possession of his child who differs with him in religion, he would become free upon him, despite the absence of these other rulings.

1053 - Issue: He said: (The wala' [clientage rights] of the mukatab [contractually emancipated slave] and the mudabbar [slave promised freedom upon master's death] belongs to their master if they are emancipated.)

This is the position of the generality of the jurists. Al-Shafi'i and the people of Iraq hold this view. Ibn Suraqa narrated from 'Amr ibn Dinar and Abu Thawr that there is no wala' over the mukatab, because he purchased himself from his master, so he has no wala' over him, just as if a stranger had purchased him and emancipated him. Qatada used to say: Whoever does not stipulate the wala' of the mukatab, then his mukatab may align himself [in clientage] with whomever he wishes. Makhul said: As for the mukatab, if he stipulates his wala' along with his person, it is permissible. Our argument is that the master is the one who emancipates the mukatab, because he is responsible for his wealth, and his wealth is his earnings for his master, so he assigned that to him, then sold it to him until he was emancipated; thus, he is the emancipator. He is also the emancipator of the mudabbar without any ambiguity, and the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "The wala' belongs to the one who emancipates." (1) This is indicated by the fact that mukatabs are called the mawali [clients] of their emancipators; so it is said: Abu Sa'id (2) is the mawla of Abu (3) Usayd, and Sirin is the mawla of Anas, and Sulayman ibn Yasar is the mawla of Maymunah, and she had gifted his wala' to Ibn 'Abbas, and they were mukatabs, as well as others like them. This is also indicated by the fact that in the hadith of Barirah, she came to 'Aishah and said: "O Mother of the Believers, I have contracted with my family for nine awaq [units of silver], so assist me." 'Aishah said: "If they wish, I shall pay them the entire amount at once, and your wala' will belong to me, I will do so." They refused to sell her unless the wala' belonged to them, so the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Purchase her and stipulate the wala' for them." (4) This indicates that the wala' would have been theirs if 'Aishah had not purchased her from them.

Section: If a slave purchases himself from his master for a spot price, he is emancipated and the wala' belongs to his master, because he is selling his wealth for his wealth; he is exactly like the mukatab, and the master is the one who emancipates them both, so the wala' belongs to him over them.

1054 - Issue: He said: (The wala' of the umm al-walad [concubine who has borne her master a child] belongs to her master if he dies.)

He means if she is emancipated by the death of her master, her wala' belongs to him, and his closest agnate heirs (asabah) inherit from her. This is the position of 'Umar and 'Uthman, and it is the view of the generality of the jurists. Ibn Mas'ud said: She is emancipated from the share of her son, so her wala' belongs to him. Something similar is reported from Ibn 'Abbas. From 'Ali it is reported: She is not emancipated unless he emancipates her (3), and he has the right to sell her. Jabir ibn Zayd and the Ahl al-Zahir also held this view. Something similar is reported from Ibn 'Abbas. The mention of the proof for her emancipation has a place other than this, and there is no disagreement among those who hold that she is emancipated that her wala' belongs to the one upon whom she becomes free. The school of the majority is that she is emancipated upon the death of her master from the bulk of the estate, so her wala' belongs to him, because she was emancipated by his action from his wealth (4), so her wala' belongs to him, just as if she were emancipated by his verbal command. Inheritance of her wala' is restricted to the male agnates of the master, like the mudabbar and the mukatab.