in the limb, he remains a mudabbar as he was. If his master dies after his crime but before it is fulfilled, he is emancipated in any case, whether it was a crime requiring property or qisas, because the attribute of emancipation has been found in him, so it is similar to if he had initiated it with him. If the obligation was qisas, it is exacted, whether his crime was against a slave or a free person, because the obligation of qisas had already been established upon him during his state of servitude, so it does not lapse due to the occurrence of freedom for him. If the obligation upon him was property tied to his person, he is ransomed by the lesser of the two matters: his value or the indemnity for his crime. If a crime is committed against the mudabbar, the indemnity for the crime belongs to his master. If the crime is against his person, his value becomes due to his master, and the tadbir is invalidated by his destruction. If it is said: Why did you not make his value take his place, like the mortgaged slave and the endowed slave [if a crime is committed against them]? We say: The difference between them is from three aspects: One is that [every one of the endowment] and the mortgage is binding, so the right attaches to its substitute, while the tadbir is not binding, because it is possible to invalidate it through sale and otherwise, so the right does not attach to its substitute. Second, the right in the tadbir is for the mudabbar, so his right is invalidated by the loss of the one entitled to it, and the substitute does not take his place in entitlement, while the right [in the endowment is for the beneficiary, and in the mortgage is for the mortgagee, and it remains, so his right is established in the substitute of the subject of his right]. Third, the mudabbar's right is only established by the occurrence of his master's death, so if he perished before his master, he perished before the establishment of the right for him, so he has no substitute, unlike the mortgage and the endowment, for the right is established in both, so their substitute takes their place. Between the mortgage and the mudabbar is a fourth difference, which is that the obligation is the value, and the existence of the tadbir is not possible within it, nor does it take the place of the mudabbar in it; and if he takes a slave in his place, it is not the substitute, but rather it is the substitute for the value, unlike the mortgage, for the value is permitted to be a mortgage. If it is said: This also necessitates the endowment, for when it is killed, its value is taken, and a slave is bought with it to be an endowment in its place. We say: The difference between the mudabbar and the mortgage has already been achieved from the three aspects, and the fact that the difference between it and the endowment does not occur from this aspect does not prevent the difference between it and the mortgage from occurring by it.