and Uthman, Ali, Zayd, and Ibn Mas’ud, that they said: Wala’ goes to the eldest; and to this opinion I incline. The explanation of this is that a man emancipates a slave, then he dies leaving two sons, and one of the two sons dies leaving a son; the wala’ of this emancipated slave belongs to the son of the emancipator, and the grandson has nothing while the son is present. The argument of Shurayh is the hadith of ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb which we mentioned, and analogy to wealth. Our position is the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The mawla is a brother in religion, a possessor of a bond of favor, and the worthiest of people of his inheritance are the closest of them to the emancipator." And his saying (peace be upon him): "Wala’ belongs only to the one who emancipated." And his saying: "Wala’ is a bond like the bond of lineage." It is one of the causes of inheritance, yet it is not inherited, just like kinship and marriage. Furthermore, it is a consensus of the Companions upon which no disagreement has appeared, so it is not permitted to oppose it. The hadith of ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb has been considered erroneous by scholars, and it is not established from any of the Companions that they held an opinion contrary to this. Al-Sha’bi and the Imams reported it from ‘Umar and those whose opinion we mentioned. It is not correct to treat wala’ like wealth, because wala’ is not inherited, evidenced by the fact that the fixed-share heirs (dhawu al-furud) do not inherit from it; rather, one is inherited through it. Therefore, one considers the person closest to the master from his agnates on the day of the death of the slave and the emancipator, and he is the heir to the mawla to the exclusion of others, just as if the master had died at that time, he would be his sole heir. If he left behind the son of his mawla and the grandson of his mawla, his wealth goes to the son of his mawla. If he left behind the grandson of his mawla and nine sons of another son of his mawla, his wealth is shared among them according to their number, with each one having one-tenth, because they inherit from their grandfather in this manner. If the master left his son and grandson, and then his son died after him leaving a son, then his emancipated slave died, the inheritance is divided between the two grandsons in equal halves. According to the opinion of Shurayh, it belongs to the grandson who was alive at the time of his son’s death. If the master died leaving a paternal brother (from the father's side) and a son of a full brother, then the paternal brother died leaving a son, and then the emancipated slave died, his wealth belongs to the son of the full brother. According to the opinion of Shurayh, it belongs to the son of the paternal brother. And if he does not