the slave, so it was estimated from his value, like the indemnity for a crime. Our argument is that it is a guarantee of property without a crime, so what is mandatory is what has been depreciated, like a garment. This is because the purpose of the guarantee is to compensate the owner's right by making the amount of the loss mandatory, and the amount of the depreciation is what compensates it. Furthermore, if the entire thing were lost, its value would be mandatory; therefore, if a portion of it is lost, its proportional amount of the value is mandatory, just like non-animal property. As for the hadith of Zayd ibn Thabit, it has no basis; and even if it were authentic, Ahmad and others would not have argued using the hadith of Umar while abandoning it, for the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is more worthy of being used as an argument. As for the saying of Umar, it is interpreted as meaning that this was the amount of its depreciation, as it was narrated from him that he decreed for an existing eye fifty dinars. If it were a fixed estimation, half the value would be mandatory for the eye, like the eye of a human. As for the guarantee of a crime against the limbs of a slave, it is diverted from the analogy in order to equate it with a crime against a free person. The mandatory amount here is the guarantee for the hand, but the hand is not established for a free person, so it remains mandatory based on the original principle and by equating it with other usurped property. Abu Hanifa's statement that this applies to livestock and beasts is not valid, because this opinion is based on the statement of Umar, and the statement of Umar is only regarding the beast (dabba), and the beast in custom is what is prepared for riding, not livestock.

Section: If one usurps a slave and commits against him a crime with a fixed blood money (diyah), then according to our opinion—that the guarantee for usurpation is the guarantee for a crime—what is mandatory is the indemnity for the crime, just as if one committed against him a crime without usurpation, regardless of whether the crime caused a depreciation that is less or more than that. And if we say that the guarantee for usurpation is different from the guarantee for a crime—which is the correct view—then the usurper is liable for the greater of the two, either the indemnity for the depreciation or the blood money for that limb; because the cause (28) for the guarantee of each of them was found (29), so the greater of the two became mandatory, and the other was included within it, as the crime and the possession (hand) were both found together. If one usurps a slave worth one thousand, then his value increases so he becomes worth two thousand, then one cuts off his hand, and he depreciates by one thousand, he is liable for one thousand and must return the slave; because the cause (30) of the increase