to his Muslim heirs, like the rest of his wealth and assets, and like that which he acquired after he was wounded. And if it occurs during the ownership of his heirs, then his heirs are the Muslims, not the disbelievers.

Section: If one cuts off the nose of a slave whose value is a thousand dinars, and it heals, then the master emancipates him, his value in full is due to the master. And if he emancipates him then it heals, it is the same; because that which was made obligatory by the injury only becomes established upon healing, and the injury took place while in the ownership of his master. And if he dies from the spread of the wound, it is the same according to the view of Abu Bakr and al-Qadi. This is also the view of al-Muzani, because in an injury, the state at the time of its occurrence is considered. Al-Qadi mentioned that Ahmad stated this explicitly in the narration of Hanbal, regarding one who gouged out the two eyes of a slave, then he was emancipated and died; in that case, his value is due, not the blood-money. The implication of al-Khiraqi’s statement is that what is due is the blood-money of a free man, which is the school of al-Shafi'i, because the consideration of an injury is according to its state of establishment, which we have already mentioned. It is then paid to the master, because he is entitled to the lesser of the two: his blood-money or the damages for the wound, and the blood-money here is the lesser of the two. What they mentioned is invalidated by the case where one cuts off both hands and both legs, and he dies from the spread of the wound; for the obligation is the blood-money for a life, not the blood-money for the injury.

Section: If one cuts off the hand of a slave, and he is emancipated, then he returns and cuts off his leg, and both cuts heal, there is no retaliation for the hand because it was cut while he was in a state of slavery, and half of his value or the amount the cut diminished him is due to his master. Retaliation is due for the leg which he cut while he was in a state of freedom, or half of the blood-money if he pardons the retaliation to his heirs. If the cut of the hand heals, and the cut of the leg spreads to his life, then for the hand, half the value is for his master, and upon the cutter is retaliation for the life, or the full blood-money for his heirs. If the cut of the leg heals, and the cut of the hand spreads, then for the leg there is retaliation by cutting it, or half the blood-money to his heirs, and there is no retaliation for the hand, nor for its spread, and upon the perpetrator is the blood-money of a free man, with the master being entitled to the lesser of the two: the damages of the cut or the blood-money of a free man, according to the statement of Ibn Hamid. And according to the statement of Abu Bakr