As stated earlier, inheritance through walāʾ applies only when the freedman has no male agnatic heir by blood and the prescribed shares do not exhaust the estate. If a male blood agnate exists, he takes precedence over the walāʾ agnate; and if the heirs are fixed-share beneficiaries whose portions consume the entire estate, the claim based on walāʾ lapses like that of any other agnate.

The prevailing opinion in the school of Imām Aḥmad is that disbelief does not bar inheritance by walāʾ, for walāʾ remains valid despite a difference of religion—this is undisputed among the scholars—and walāʾ is an offshoot of the institution of slavery. Another report from Imām Aḥmad, however, holds that religious difference blocks mutual inheritance even through walāʾ. Al-Muwaffaq declared this to be the view of the majority of jurists, invoking the general wording of the ḥadith found in both Ṣaḥīḥs: “A Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever, nor does a disbeliever inherit from a Muslim.” Since religious difference nullifies inheritance through lineage—which has greater force than walāʾ—it is even more fitting that it should nullify inheritance through walāʾ.

Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn (Ibn Taymiyyah) said: A zindīq hypocrite both inherits and is inherited from, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took anything from the estate of a hypocrite or placed it in the public treasury. Hence it is understood that inheritance is governed by outward affiliation, and that the designation “Muslim” applies to such a person in worldly matters by unanimous agreement.