by one. If the buyer validates the seller alone, he may seek recourse against him for its value, and the buyer may not seek recourse for the price. The remaining scenarios are as they have passed.

Section: If he sells a slave or gives him away, then claims, "I did that before I owned him, and I own him now by way of inheritance or a gift from his owner, so you are obligated to return him to me," the initial sale and gift are void. If he establishes evidence for this, we shall consider: if, at the time of the sale and gift, he said: "This is my property," or "I have sold you this property of mine," or if it contained an admission that it was his property, such as saying: "I have received the price of my property," or "I have received it," and the like, the evidence is not accepted; because he is contradicting it, and it is contradicting him. If it was not like that, the testimony is accepted; because a person may sell and give away his own property and the property of another.

Section: If the usurped slave commits a crime that necessitates qisas (retaliatory punishment), and it is executed upon him, his liability lies with the usurper; because he was destroyed while in his possession. If he is pardoned in exchange for wealth, that liability attaches to his person (raqaba), and the liability for that lies with the usurper; because it is a loss that occurred while in his possession, so he is obligated to compensate for it; because the liability for a slave and his depreciation lies with his master. He guarantees it for the lesser of the two things: his value or the indemnity (arsh) for his crime, just as his master would ransom him. If he commits a crime against something other than life, such as cutting off a hand, and his hand is cut off in qisas, the usurper is liable for what the slave has depreciated by that, not the indemnity of the hand; because the hand was lost for a cause that is not subject to liability, so it is like what would happen if it had fallen off. If he is pardoned in exchange for wealth, the indemnity of the hand attaches to his person, and the usurper is liable for the lesser of the two things: his value or the indemnity of the hand. If the slave's crime exceeds his value, and then he dies, the usurper is liable for his value, which he pays to his master. Once he takes it, the indemnity of the crime attaches to it; because it was attached to the slave, so it attached to his substitute, just as when a pledge (rahn) is destroyed by someone who destroys it, its value becomes due, and the debt attaches to it. When the claimant of the crime takes the value from the owner, the owner seeks recourse against the usurper.