Wala’ means that when a person emancipates a slave, the emancipated person becomes, as it were, one of his relatives. It is narrated from the Prophet that he said: “Wala’ is a bond like the bond of blood kinship.” (1) That is, it is a bond between the former master and the emancipated slave, like the bond of lineage. Thus, the emancipator inherits from him if he has no heir through blood relationship. For example, if someone dies leaving behind a daughter of his full brother and an emancipator, the estate belongs to the emancipator, even though the deceased was her paternal uncle. This is because she is neither a Qur’anic heir with a prescribed share nor an agnatic heir; therefore, the estate goes to the former master who emancipated him.

In reality, wala’ is a bond like the bond of lineage: through it are established such matters as inheritance, guardianship, and the like, in the absence of an agnatic relative by blood. However, it does not establish the status of a mahram relative as lineage does. This is why the Prophet emancipated Safiyyah, made her emancipation her bridal gift, and married her. (2)

Or, if he stipulates that the buyer do so, the condition alone is invalid, unless he stipulates emancipation. A sale on the condition that “you must pay me the price within three days, otherwise there will be no sale between us” is valid. But if he says, “I sell it to you if you bring me such-and-such,” or, “if Zayd approves,” or says to the pledgee, “If I bring you what is due to you, then so be it; otherwise, the pledge is yours,” the sale is invalid.......

His statement, “Or, if he stipulates that the buyer do so, the condition alone is invalid”: the “doing so” referred to is selling, gifting, or emancipating. For example, he says: “I sell you this slave for such-and-such, on condition that you sell him to so-and-so.” Here, the condition is invalid, because the consequence of the contract is that the buyer is free to dispose of the property: if he wishes, he may sell it, and if he wishes, he may refrain from selling it. Can we say here, as we said in the first case, that there is no problem if the seller has a valid purpose?