a crime that has occurred upon an entitled subject, so its owner is prioritized over the one entitled before him, just like a crime against a slave who has not committed a crime. Shurayh said, regarding a slave who wounded a man, then another, [then another]: He is handed over to the first, unless his master ransoms him, then he is handed over to the second, then he is handed over to the third, unless the middle one ransoms him. Our position is that they are equal in the cause of the attachment of the right to him, so they are equal in entitlement, just as if he had committed a crime against them all at once. Indeed, if some were to be prioritized, the first would be more entitled because his right is earlier. It is not valid to draw an analogy to ownership, for the right of the victim is stronger, evidenced by the fact that if both were to occur at once, the right of the victim would be prioritized. Furthermore, the victim's right was established without the owner's consent as compensation, whereas the owner's right was established by his consent or without compensation; thus, they differ.

Section: If the master emancipates his slave who has committed a crime, he is emancipated, and the master guarantees what was attached to him regarding the blood money (arsh), because he destroyed the subject of the crime for the one whose right was attached to it; therefore, he is liable for its compensation, just as if he had killed him. The amount of the guarantee is based on the two narrations regarding the case where he chooses to retain him after the crime, because he refrained from handing him over by emancipating him, so he is in the position of one refraining from handing him over by choosing to pay his ransom. Ibn Mansur reported from Ahmad that if he emancipates him while knowing of his crime, he is liable for the blood money—meaning the blood money for the person killed—and if he was not aware of his crime, he is liable for the slave's price. This is because if he emancipates him while knowing, he has chosen to pay his ransom, unlike if he did not know, as he did not choose the ransom due to his lack of knowledge of it, so he is not liable for more than the value of what he caused to be lost.

Section: If he sells him or gives him away, the sale is valid, for reasons we mentioned regarding the sale, and the attachment of the crime to his person does not cease. If the purchaser is aware of his condition, he has no right of option, because he entered into the transaction with insight, and the option regarding his ransom and handing him over transfers to him, just as with the first master. If he was unaware, he has the option between retaining him or returning him, like other defective goods.