from captivity; it is like the freeing of a slave from bondage. Furthermore, it contains honor for the religion, so it is like allocating it to those whose hearts are to be reconciled. Also, he pays it to the captive [for the freeing of] his neck, so it is similar to what he pays to a debtor to free him from debt.

1091 - Issue: He said: (And whatever of the wala' returns, it shall be returned into its like).

He means that he shall also emancipate with it. This is the opinion of al-Hasan and Ishaq. Abu Ubayd said: The wala' belongs to the emancipator, based on the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "The wala' belongs only to the one who emancipates." Malik said: Its wala' belongs to all the Muslims; because it is wealth for which there is no rightful claimant, similar to the wealth of one who has no heir. Al-Anbari said: He should place it in the public treasury (bayt al-mal) for charity; because his emancipation was from charity, so its wala' returns to it, and because his emancipation was through wealth that belongs to Allah, and the emancipator is merely a deputy on behalf of Allah the Exalted in purchasing and emancipating, so the wala' does not belong to him, just as if he were a proxy in emancipation, and like the zakat collector (sa'i) if he were to purchase a captive with Zakat and emancipate her. Furthermore, the wala' is an effect of bondage and a benefit from the emancipated person, so it is not permissible for it to return to the zakat payer, because it leads to him benefiting from his own Zakat. It has been reported from Ahmad that which indicates that the wala' belongs to him. That has already preceded in the chapter on wala'.

Section: He does not take responsibility for his crimes (la ya'qilu 'anhu). This was chosen by al-Khallal. There is another report from Ahmad that he does take responsibility for his crimes (ya'qilu 'anhu). Abu Bakr chose this; because he is an emancipator, so he takes responsibility for his crimes, like the one who emancipated him from his own wealth. He simply did not take his inheritance through wala' so as not to benefit from his Zakat, and taking responsibility for his crimes is not a benefit, so it remains upon the original principle. Our position is that there is no wala' binding him, so he does not take responsibility for his crimes, as if he were an agent in emancipation, and because he does not inherit from him, so he does not take responsibility for his crimes, as if their religions were different. What he mentioned is invalidated by the agent and the zakat collector if one of them emancipates from Zakat.