Section: If a belligerent (harbi) emancipates a belligerent slave, he holds the wala' over him, because wala' is analogous to lineage, and lineage is established among the people of war; thus, so too is wala'. This is the position of the generality of scholars, except for the people of Iraq, who maintained that emancipation, kitaba (contractual manumission), and tadbir (post-mortem manumission) in the Dar al-Harb (abode of war) are not valid, and if he cohabited with his slave-girl, she would not become an umm walad, whether the master is a Muslim, a dhimmi, or a belligerent. We argue that their ownership is established, evidenced by the words of Allah Almighty: "And He caused you to inherit their land, their homes, and their properties" (20), as He attributed them to them. Therefore, their emancipation is valid, like that of the people of Islam. Once their emancipation is valid, the wala' is established for them due to the Prophet's (peace be upon him) statement: "Wala' belongs to the one who emancipated." If the emancipated slave comes to us as a Muslim, the wala' remains as it was. If the patron (mawla al-ni'mah) is taken captive, he does not inherit so long as he is a slave; if he is emancipated, the wala' remains for his emancipator, and he holds the wala' over his own emancipated slave. Does the emancipator of the master hold wala' over his (the master's) emancipated slave? It is possible that it is established, because he is the patron of his patron. It is also possible that it is not established, because no favor or cause for it was derived from him. If the one who purchased him was his master and then emancipated him, each of them is the patron of the other and inherits from him by way of wala'. If his master captured him and then emancipated him, it is the same. If his master and a stranger captured him and then emancipated him, the wala' is divided between them in two halves. If the first emancipator dies after him, his partner receives half of his wealth, because he is the patron of half his patron according to one of the two possibilities. The other gets nothing, because he did not bestow a favor upon him. If the emancipated slave is captured and a man purchases him and then emancipates him, the wala' of the first is invalidated and the wala' becomes the second's. This is the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i. It is said the wala' is between them, a view preferred by Ibn al-Mundhir, as neither of them is more entitled than the other. It is also said the wala' belongs to the first, as he is earlier. We argue that capture invalidates the ownership of the first belligerent, so the wala' attached to it is even more so. Furthermore, the wala' was invalidated by his re-enslavement, so it does not return upon his emancipation. If a dhimmi emancipates a disbelieving slave, and he flees to the Dar al-Harb and is enslaved, the ruling regarding him is the same as the ruling regarding the case where the belligerent emancipates him. If a Muslim emancipates a disbeliever, and he flees to the Dar al-Harb, then the Muslims capture him, Abu Bakr and the Qadi stated that his enslavement is not permissible. This is the position of al-Shafi'i, because in his enslavement lies the invalidation of the wala' of the protected Muslim. Ibn al-Labban said: And because he has an aman (guarantee of safety) through the Muslim's emancipation of him.