divided between them. The Qadi mentioned, regarding its division between them, that the indemnity (arsh) for the first's wound is apportioned, and upon the second is the indemnity for his wound, then what remains of the value is divided between them equally. He proposed the issue concerning prey whose value is ten dirhams; the first's wound diminished it by one dirham, and the second's wound diminished it by one dirham. Thus, there is one dirham upon him (the second), and the remainder, which is eight, is divided between them in half; so the second is liable for five dirhams: one dirham for the direct act, and four for the extension (sirayah) of the wound, and the share of the first—which is five—is dropped. And if the indemnity for the second's wound was two dirhams, both are incumbent upon him, and half of the seven remaining dirhams are incumbent upon him—three and a half—making his total liability five and a half, and the share of the first—four and a half—is dropped. And if their act of injury was against an animal owned by someone else, the liability is divided between them likewise. It follows from this method that it equates the two acts of injury, even though the second injured it when its value was less than its value on the day the first injured it, and that the indemnity for the injury does not enter into the substitute for the soul (life), as it enters into the injury of a human. The answer to this is that each one of them individually destroyed what is worth one dirham, and they were equal in destroying the remainder through the extension of the injury, so they are equal in liability. The indemnity for the injury only enters into the substitute for the soul which does not decrease in value by the destruction of a portion of it, namely the human. As for beasts, if an injury is inflicted upon them the indemnity of which is one dirham, that decreases its value. So when it extends to the life, we impose what remains of the value of the life, and the indemnity does not enter into it. The companions of al-Shafi'i mentioned six methods in dividing the liability; the most correct among them is to say: The first destroyed half a life whose value was ten, so five are incumbent upon him. The second destroyed half a life whose value was nine, so four and a half are incumbent upon him. The total is nine and a half, which is less than its value, for it is ten. Thus, the ten is divided over nine and a half, so what corresponds to four and a half is dropped from the first. It follows from this that each of them is liable for more than the value of half the prey at the time he injured it. And if the injuries were from three people, if the first was the one who incapacitated it, then according to the Qadi's method, each one is responsible for the indemnity of his wound, and the extension is divided among them in thirds. And if the one who incapacitated it was the second, then his (the first's) wound