lineage, and likewise in the transfer of the wala'. Zufar said: If the father is alive, the grandfather does not transfer (17) the wala', and if he is dead, he does transfer it. This is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i. Our argument is that the principle is the persistence of the wala' for the one entitled to it, and this principle is only contravened due to the consensus that it transfers upon the emancipation of the father, and the grandfather is not his equal. This is evidenced by the fact that if the father were to be emancipated (18) after the grandfather, he would transfer it away from the masters of the grandfather to himself. Furthermore, if the grandfather were to embrace Islam, his grandchild would not follow him in that. Also, the grandfather is a dependent link to someone else (yudli bi-ghayrihi), and the wala' does not settle upon him, so he does not transfer the wala', like a brother. His occupying the position of the father does not necessitate that the wala' transfers to him, just like a brother. According to the other opinion, there is no distinction between a near grandfather and a remote one, because a remote one occupies the position of the father just as a near one does. This implies that whenever a remote one is emancipated and transfers the wala', then whoever is closer than him is emancipated, he transfers the wala' to himself; then, if the father is emancipated, he transfers the wala', because each one acts as a barrier (hajb) to the one above him, canceling his asaba, inheritance, and guardianship. If the grandfather was not emancipated, but was free while his child was a slave, and he married a woman who was a freed slave (mawlat qawm) and had children by her, their wala' belongs to the master of their mother. According to those who say the grandfather transfers the wala', it belongs to the master of the grandfather. If the grandfather was not a mawla, but was free by origin, then there is no wala' upon the children of his son. If his father (the grandfather) were emancipated after that, no wala' would return upon his children, because freedom was established for him without any wala', so no wala' was renewed upon him, like one who is free by origin.

Section: If one of the two free spouses is free by origin, there is no wala' upon their children, regardless of whether the other is an Arab or a mawla. This is because if the mother is free by origin, the child follows her in the negation (19) of slavery and wala' in cases where the father is a slave; therefore, it is more appropriate that he should follow her in the negation of the wala' alone. If the father is free by origin, the child follows him in cases where there is a wala' upon him, such that the wala' upon him becomes the property of the master of his father; therefore, it is more appropriate that he should follow him in the cessation of the wala' from him. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. It does not matter whether the father is an Arab or a non-Arab. Abu Hanifah said: If he is a non-Arab and the mother is a mawla, the wala' is established upon his child.