the child. This is not correct; because he is free by origin, so the wala' is not established upon his child, just as if he were an Arab. It is the same whether he is a Muslim, a dhimmi, a harbi, or of unknown or known lineage. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf, Malik, and Ibn Surayj. Al-Qadi said: If he is of unknown lineage, the wala' is established upon his child for the master of the mother if she is a freed slave (mawlat). Ibn al-Labban said: This is the apparent (zahir) position of the Shafi'i school. Al-Khabri said: This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, Muhammad, and Ahmad; because the requirement for its establishment for the master of the mother is present, and it was only prevented in the agreed-upon case due to the freedom of the father. Therefore, if that is not known, doubt has occurred regarding the preventive factor (21), so it remains upon the original principle (asl), and certainty is not removed by doubt, nor is acting upon the requirement abandoned while there is doubt regarding the preventive factor. Our argument is that the father is free (22), and he is judged by his freedom, so he resembles one whose lineage is known. Also, the principle concerning humans is freedom and the absence of wala', so this principle is not abandoned due to conjecture regarding the child, just as (23) it is not abandoned regarding the father. Their saying that the requirement for its establishment for the master of the mother is present is rejected; for it is only established for the master of the mother on the condition of the father's slavery, and this condition is non-existent both legally and apparently. Even if we concede the existence of the requirement, the preventive factor has been established legally, for the father's freedom is legally established, so there is no reliance upon what they have said. If the father is a mawla and the mother is of unknown lineage, there is no wala' upon him according to our school. The analogy of the opinion of al-Qadi and al-Shafi'i would be that the wala' is established upon him for the master of his son, because we have doubted the preventive factor of its establishment. Our argument is what we mentioned in the previous case, and because the mother cannot be otherwise than either free by origin, in which case there is no wala' on her child; or a slave, in which case her child is a slave; or a mawlat, in which case there is wala' upon her child for the master of his father. The first possibility is stronger for two reasons: First, it is the judged state of the mother, so it must be the judgment for her child. Second, it is supported by the original principle (asl), for the principle is freedom. Furthermore, if this possibility were not stronger, the possibility they have adopted would be countered