his master, for three reasons: First, his earnings belong to him, and this is a substitute for what is lost of his earnings due to the severing of his hand. Second, a mukataba (female slave under contract) is entitled to the dower (mahr) in marriage because it relates to a limb of her body, and the substitute for the limb is likewise [hers]. Third, the master takes the money of the kitaba as a substitute for the person of the mukatab, so it is not permissible for him to be entitled to another substitute for it. Then, there are three possible states: The first state is that the offender is his master; in this case, there is no retaliation (qisas) against him for two meanings: One is that he is free, while the mukatab is a slave. The second is that he is his owner, and retaliation is not exacted from an owner for his slave. However, the indemnity (arsh) is due, and it is only due once the wound has healed, according to what we mentioned in the chapters on offenses (jinayat). This is because, before healing, one is not safe from it spreading to his life, so the indemnity for it is dropped. Once this is established, if the wound spreads and results in his death, the kitaba is voided, and the ruling in this case is as if he had killed him. If the wound heals, the indemnity for it is owed to him from his master. If it is of the same kind as the kitaba money and a payment installment (najm) has become due, they settle the debts against each other. If it is of a different kind than the kitaba money, or the installment has not yet become due, they do not settle the debts, and each of them demands what he is entitled to. If they agree that one of them should be a substitute for the other, and they are of two different kinds, it is not permissible because it is the sale of a debt for a debt. If one of them receives his right and then gives it to the other as a substitute for his own right, it is permissible. If the mukatab agrees to the early payment of what is due to him before his installments are due, it is permissible, provided it is of the same kind as the kitaba money. The second state: If the offender is a free outsider, there is also no retaliation, because a free person is not killed for a slave. However, one considers: if the wound spreads to his life, the kitaba is voided, and the offender must pay his value to his master. If the wound heals, he owes him the indemnity for it. If he pays the kitaba and becomes free, then the wound spreads to his life, his blood money (diya) becomes due because the assessment of liability is based on the state of finality, and this belongs to his heirs. If the offender is the master or another of the heirs, he inherits nothing from him because the killer does not inherit, and it goes to the public treasury (bayt al-mal) if he has no heir. Whoever considers the offense based on its initial state makes the offender liable for his value, and it also belongs to his heirs. The third state: If the offender is a slave or a mukatab; if the legal consequence of the offense is retaliation and it is against life, the kitaba is voided, and his master has the choice between retaliation