as if he were not a mukatab (contractual slave). This is because it is part of their inherited property, so it is among them like all other property. As for when (2) he pays the kitaba wealth and is emancipated, al-Khiraqi said: His wala' (patronage rights) belongs to the one who contracted the kitaba with him, and his agnatic heirs (asabat) have the exclusive right to it, excluding those entitled to fixed shares (ashab al-furud). This is the opinion of the majority of jurists and is the choice of Abu Bakr. Ishaq ibn Mansur reported it from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and from Ishaq. Hanbal and Salih ibn Ahmad reported from his father, who said: People disagreed regarding a mukatab whose master dies while there remains a portion of his kitaba contract. Some people said: The wala' belongs to both men and women. Others said: There is no wala' for women, because this is merely a debt upon the mukatab, and women do not inherit from wala' except for what they themselves contracted or emancipated. Each position has a rationale. The view that I incline toward and believe prevails is that they do inherit. This is because if the mukatab were to become incapable after the master's death, he would be returned to slavery. This is the opinion of Tawus and al-Zuhri. This is because (3) the mukatab transferred to the heirs upon the death of the master, so his wala' belongs to them, just as if he had been transferred to a purchaser, and because he pays to the heirs, so his wala' belongs to them, just as if he had paid to (4) the purchaser. The rationale for the first view is that the master is the one who bestowed the favor of emancipation, so the wala' belongs to him, just as if he had paid to him, and because the heirs only acquire what remained for the master, and what remained for the master was a debt upon the mukatab. The difference between inheritance and purchase is that the master transferred his right in the object sold (5) by his own choice, so no right remained for him in it in any way. The heir succeeds the deceased, stands in his place, and builds upon what his predecessor did, and nothing is transferred to him that could have remained with his predecessor, and wala' is something that could have remained for the predecessor, so it is mandatory that it not be transferred away from him.

Section: If the heirs emancipate him, their emancipation is valid, because he is their property, so their emancipation of him is valid. Moreover, if the master had emancipated him, his emancipation would have been effective, and they stand in the place of their predecessor. His wala' belongs to them, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Wala' belongs to the one who emancipated" (6). If some of them emancipate their share, and his entire person is emancipated through them, the share of his partners is appraised against him, and his wala' belongs to the emancipator. If his emancipation does not extend—due to his insolvency or other reasons—