to him, whether he later embraces Islam or not. This entire ruling is the position of Mālik and his companions.

If a dhimmī emancipates his slave while both are unbelievers, and thereafter the freedman accepts Islam while his former master remains an unbeliever, the master has no claim to the freedman’s walāʾ unless he too becomes Muslim. Should he convert, the walāʾ and the right of inheritance both return to him. If the master has Muslim sons who, in the meantime, have inherited from their father’s freedman, then when the father himself accepts Islam the walāʾ reverts to him and he becomes the heir.

Likewise, if a ḥarbī frees a slave, the slave embraces Islam and joins us, and the former master later does the same, the master inherits from him, for the walāʾ is established for him just as it is for a dhimmī who frees a dhimmī.

Should slaves belonging to the people of war come over to us under a grant of safe-conduct and then enter Islam, their walāʾ is fixed for the Muslims and never returns to their former masters, even if those masters later follow them to our territory.

Whoever sells his slave to the slave himself retains the walāʾ; it is his and no one else’s. According to Mālik and his associates, when someone emancipates a slave on behalf of another person, the walāʾ belongs to the person on whose behalf the emancipation was performed, whether he had authorised it or not, and whether compensation was involved or not.

If a Muslim frees a Christian slave who subsequently dies, the slave’s estate is deposited in the Bayt al-Māl of the Muslims as fayʾ. If a Muslim frees his Muslim slave, then the master apostasises and the slave later dies, the estate passes to the master’s heirs.

If a dhimmī frees another dhimmī, the freedman becomes Muslim while the former master flees to the Abode of War, and later the freedman—now fighting with the Muslims—captures his former master, frees him, and the master also accepts Islam, then each of the two holds the walāʾ of the other.