the wound, his killer shall not be executed for him; because parity [takafu'] was absent at the time of the offense. Upon him is the blood money [diyah] of a Muslim, because the assessment of the compensation [arsh] is based on the state in which the offense becomes established, as evidenced by the case where one cuts off a man's hands and feet, and it spreads to his life; there is only one blood money (12) for it. If it were considered at the time of the wounding, two blood monies would be required. If a free person cuts the hand of a slave, then he is emancipated and dies, retribution is not required due to the lack of parity (13) at the time of the offense, and the perpetrator owes the blood money of a free person, based on the state of establishment. This is the opinion of Ibn Hamid and the school (14) of al-Shafi'i. For the master, there is the lesser of two things: half of his value, or half of the blood money of a free person, and the remainder belongs to his heirs; because if half of his value is less, it is what was found in his possession, so he cannot have more than that, as the excess was acquired through his freedom, and he has no right to what was acquired thereby. If the lesser is the blood money, he is not entitled to more than that, because the decrease in value occurred due to a cause from the master's side, [which is his emancipation] (15). The Qadi mentioned that Ahmad stated, in the narration of Hanbal, regarding one who gouges out the eyes of a slave, then he is emancipated and dies, that the perpetrator owes (13) his value to the master. This indicates that the consideration is for the state at the time of the offense. This is the choice of Abu Bakr, the Qadi, and Abu al-Khattab. Abu al-Khattab said: Whoever cuts the hand of a Dhimmi, then he accepts Islam and dies, he guarantees it with the blood money of a Dhimmi; and if he cuts the hand of a slave, and his master emancipates him and he dies, the perpetrator owes his value to the master, because the ruling of retribution is considered based on the time of the offense, not the time of the spreading, and likewise is the blood money. The first opinion is more correct, if Allah wills, because the spreading of the wound is guaranteed, so when it destroys (16) a free Muslim, its compensation as a full blood money becomes obligatory, just as if he had killed him with a second wound. As for Ahmad's statement regarding one who gouges out the eyes of a slave, that he owes his value to the master, there is no disagreement regarding it. The disagreement is only regarding the obligation of the excess over the value from the blood money of a free person to the heirs, and Ahmad did not mention it. This is because the obligatory amount is measured by what the spreading leads to, not what the offense destroys, as evidenced by the fact that whoever has his hands (17) and feet cut, and the cutting spreads to his life,