The second section concerns the debt a slave incurs through the indemnities for his crimes or the values of items he destroyed. This attaches to the person (raqabah) of the slave in all circumstances, whether he is permitted (ma'dhun) or not, according to a single narration, and this is also the position of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. For everything that attaches to his person, the master has the choice between handing him over for sale or redeeming him. If he hands him over and he is sold, and the price is less than the indemnity for his crime, the victim has nothing but that, because the slave is the perpetrator, and nothing is incumbent upon anyone else. If the price is greater, the surplus belongs to his master. The Qadi mentioned that the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s statement is that the master does not get the surplus back. Perhaps he maintains that he handed him over as compensation for the crime, so nothing remained for the master in him, just as if he had transferred ownership of him to him as compensation for the crime. This is incorrect. The victim does not deserve more than the amount of the indemnity for the crime against him, just as if a free person had committed a crime against him; the perpetrator is not held responsible for more than the amount of his crime. Furthermore, because the right is attached to the slave himself, the surplus of his price belongs to his master, like a pledge (rahn). Their argument that he handed him over as compensation is invalid, because if it were compensation, the victim would have taken ownership of him and he would not have been sold for the crime. Rather, he handed him over to be sold, so the compensation for the crime is taken from it, and the remainder is returned to him. This is why if he destroyed a dirham, his master’s right to him is not nullified by that, due to his inability to pay the dirham from anything other than his price. If the master chooses to redeem him, he is liable for the lesser of the two: his value or the indemnity for his crime. This is because if the indemnity for the crime is greater, it does not attach to anyone other than the perpetrator slave, due to the absence of a crime by anyone else, and only his value is due. If it is less, then nothing is due for the crime except that. From Ahmad, there is another narration that he is liable for the indemnity of his crime, no matter how high it reaches, because it is possible that someone might desire him and purchase him for more than his [estimated] price, so if he prevents his sale, he becomes liable for the entire indemnity due to his causing the loss of that [potential higher price]. Al-Shafi'i has two positions, similar to the two narrations.

The third section concerns his transactions. As for the one who is not permitted, his sale or purchase with the essence of wealth is not valid, because it is a transaction by one who is interdicted regarding that which he is interdicted from, so he resembles the bankrupt person.