to his heirs, and the third party is subject to retaliation for the life or the blood-money.

Section: If a man cut off the hand of his slave, then emancipated him, and then the wound healed, there is no retaliation upon him, nor is there any indemnity; because he only cut off the hand of his own slave, and that which is incurred by injuries is only established upon healing. If he died after the emancipation due to the progression of the wound, there is no retaliation for it; because the crime was committed against his own property (slave). Regarding the obligation of indemnity, there are two positions: one of them is that nothing is obligatory; because he died due to the progression of a wound that does not entail indemnity, similar to if he died due to the progression of an amputation in a hadd punishment or the progression of retaliation, and because we have determined that the amputation was a killing, so he would be the killer of his own slave, and thus he is not liable for indemnity, just as if he had not emancipated him. [This is in accordance with the opinion of Abu Bakr]. The second position is that he is liable for it for the amount that exceeds the compensation (arsh) of the amputation from the blood-money; because he died while being a free man due to the progression of an act of aggression (amputation), so he is liable, just as if the amputator were a third party. However, the compensation for the amputation is dropped because it was in his own possession, and the excess is obligatory for his heirs. If he has no heir other than him, it is obligatory for the Public Treasury (Bayt al-Mal), and the master does not inherit anything, because the killer does not inherit.

1440 - Issue: He said: "If a man kills two people, one after the other, and the guardians of all agree to retaliation, he is executed for them. If the guardian of the first wants retaliation and the [guardian of the] second wants the blood-money, he is executed for the first, and the guardians of the second are given the blood-money from his wealth. Likewise, if the guardians of the first want the blood-money and the [guardian of the] second wants retaliation."

And the summary of this is that if he kills two people, and their guardians agree to have him killed for them, he is killed for both. If one of them wants retaliation and the other wants the blood-money, he is killed for the one who chose retaliation, and the guardians of the second are given the blood-money from his wealth, whether the one who chose retaliation was the second or the first, and whether he killed them at once or