The master has two positions regarding [what he is entitled to]: One is the lesser of the two: half the value or one-third of the blood-money. This is the analogy based on the opinion of Abu Bakr, because by the cutting, he became entitled to half the value, so when it became a life, one-third of the blood-money became due for it, and thus he is entitled to the lesser of the two. [The second is that he has] the lesser of the two: one-third of the value or one-third of the blood-money, because when the injury becomes a life, the consideration is what it resulted in. Do you not see that if the other two perpetrators had also committed the injury before the emancipation, the first would only be responsible for one-third of the value? Therefore, his right does not increase with emancipation, just as if a man had gouged out his eye, then his master sold him, then another cut off his hand, and another cut off his leg, and then he died, then the first would be entitled to one-third of the value. If the compensation (arsh) for the injury is half the value, then if we follow the first position, if the first had cut his two fingers or bruised him, and the two perpetrators in the state of freedom had cut his hand, then the blood-money is due from them in thirds, and the master is entitled from that to the lesser of the two: the compensation for the finger, which is one-tenth of the value, or one-third of the blood-money. And if the perpetrator in the state of slavery had cut his two hands, and the two perpetrators in the state of freedom had cut his two legs, the blood-money is due in thirds, and the master is entitled to the lesser of the two from it: the entire value or one-third of the blood-money. According to the other position, he is entitled in both sub-cases to the lesser of the two: one-third of the value or one-third of the blood-money.

Section: If the two perpetrators were in the state of slavery and one in the state of freedom, and he died, then the blood-money is upon them, and the master is entitled to that, in one of the two positions, the lesser of the two: the compensation for the two injuries or two-thirds of the blood-money. According to the other, he is entitled to the lesser of the two: two-thirds of the value or two-thirds of the blood-money.

Section: If the perpetrators were four; one in the state of slavery, and three in freedom,