a slave, then the one who inflicted the wound was emancipated, and the wounded [slave] died, he is killed in retaliation for him; because the retaliation became due, and it is not forfeited by emancipation thereafter. Moreover, parity existed at the time the crime—which is the cause—occurred, and that is sufficient. If a free Dhimmi (a non-Muslim subject) wounds a slave, then flees to the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) and is captured and enslaved, he is not killed for the slave because he was free at the time retaliation became due.

Section: If a slave kills another slave intentionally, the master of the murdered slave is given the choice between retaliation and pardon. If he pardons him in exchange for property, the property attaches to the person of the killer because it became due due to his crime. His master is then given the choice between ransoming him or handing him over. If he chooses to ransom him, he pays the lesser of the two amounts: either his value or the value of the murdered slave; for if the lesser amount is his own value, he is not obligated to pay more than it, as it is a substitute for him; and if the lesser amount is the value of the murdered slave, his master does not owe more than that, as it is a substitute for him (21). Another narration from him [Ahmad] states that if his master chooses to ransom him, he is obligated to pay the blood money (arsh) for the crime, regardless of how high it reaches; because if he hands him over for sale, a bidder might bid more than his [current] value. If ten slaves kill a slave of a man intentionally, they are subject to retaliation. If the master chooses to kill them, he has the right to kill them. If he pardons them in exchange for property, the value of his slave attaches to their persons, each of them owing one-tenth of it, and they are to be sold accordingly (22) or his master ransoms him. If he chooses to kill some of them and pardon others, he may do so, for he has the right to kill all of them and pardon all of them. If one slave kills two slaves belonging to one man, he [the master] has the right to kill him or pardon him. If he kills him, his right is satisfied. If he pardons him in exchange for property, the value of the two slaves attaches to his person. If they belong to two different men, it is the same, except that the killer is killed in retaliation for the first of them, because his right is earlier. If the first one pardons him, he is killed for the second. If he kills them both at once, lots are drawn between the two masters, and whichever one the lot falls to, he may exact retaliation, and the right of the other is forfeited. If he pardons [the killer] from retaliation, or the master of the first murdered slave pardons from retaliation in exchange for property, it attaches to the person of the slave, and the second master may still exact retaliation; because the attachment of property to the person does not forfeit the right of retaliation, just as if a pledged slave commits a crime. If the second one kills him, the first master's right to the value is forfeited because no asset remains to which it can attach. And if he pardons...