he acknowledges to a man in order to be pardoned by him and to be entitled to take it, thereby escaping from his master. Abu al-Khattab chose the view that his acknowledgment is valid in that regard. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ash-Shafi'i; because it is one of the two types of qisas (retributive justice), so his acknowledgment of it is valid, just as it is for offenses less than murder. Based on this principle, the argument of the first view is refuted. According to this view, it is necessary that the pardon of the guardian of the injury regarding money is not valid except with the consent of his master, so that it does not lead to imposing wealth upon his master through the acknowledgment of someone else. Therefore, the slave’s acknowledgment of an accidental injury is not accepted, nor is that of quasi-intentional injury, nor of intentional injury whose requirement is wealth, such as a ja'ifah (a wound reaching the body cavity) or a ma'mumah (a head wound reaching the brain) (13), because it is the imposition of a right upon his person, and that relates to the master's right. The master's acknowledgment against him is accepted; [because it is an imposition of a right upon his wealth. If he acknowledges a theft whose requirement is wealth, his acknowledgment is not accepted, and the master's acknowledgment against him is accepted] (14); for what we have mentioned. If its requirement is amputation and wealth, and the slave acknowledges it, he must be amputated, but the wealth is not due, whether the item whose theft he acknowledged is remaining or has been lost in the hands of the master or the hands of the slave. Ahmad said, regarding a slave who acknowledged the theft of dirhams in his possession, that he stole them from a man, and the man claims that, while his master denies it: The dirhams belong to his master, the slave is to be amputated, and he is pursued for that after emancipation. There are two positions for Ash-Shafi'i regarding the obligation of the wealth in this scenario. It is possible that amputation is not due; because that is a doubt, and through it, the amputation is warded off, because it is a hadd punishment that is warded off by doubts. This is the view of Abu Hanifah; this is because the specific item whose theft he acknowledges has not had the ruling of theft established for it, so the ruling of amputation is not established for it. If the slave acknowledges his state of slavery to someone other than the one in whose possession he is, his acknowledgment of slavery is not accepted (15); because an acknowledgment (16) of slavery is an acknowledgment of ownership, and the slave's acknowledgment is not accepted in any case. Furthermore, if we were to accept his acknowledgment, we would be harming his master, because whenever he wanted, he could acknowledge for someone other than his master, thus nullifying his ownership. If the master acknowledges him for one man, and he [the slave] acknowledges for another, then he belongs to the one whom the master acknowledged for; because he is in the master's possession, not his own, and because if the master acknowledged him alone, it would be accepted. If the slave acknowledged alone, it would not...