from Samurah; it is merely a scroll." Others besides Ahmad said: "Al-Hasan only heard three hadiths from Samurah, and this is not among them." Furthermore, Al-Hasan issued a fatwa contrary to it, as he maintained: "A free person is not killed for a slave." He also said: "If a master kills his slave, he is beaten." His opposition to [the content of the hadith] indicates its weakness.

Section: A limb of a free person is not amputated for a limb of a slave, without any disagreement known among them. A slave is killed for a free person, and he is killed for his master, because if he is killed for one like him, he is more entitled to be killed for one who is more complete than him, alongside the general texts regarding this. When retaliation is due against a slave and the guardian of the crime pardons [the perpetrator] in exchange for wealth, he has the right to do so, and the compensation (arsh) attaches to his neck [person], because it is the requirement of his crime, so it attaches to his neck just like retaliation. Then, if his master wishes to deliver him to the guardian of the crime, he is not obligated [to pay] more than that, because he has delivered to him that to which his right is attached. If the guardian of the crime says: "Sell him and pay me his price," he is not obligated to do so, because nothing attached to his legal liability (dhimmah); rather, it attached to the neck which he delivered, and thus he is cleared of it. There is another view that he is obligated to do so, just as he is obligated to sell mortgaged property. If he refuses to hand him over and chooses to ransom him, is he obligated for his value or the compensation for the crime, or both? There are two narrations on this, which we have mentioned elsewhere. If he pardons the retaliation in order to own the slave's neck, there are two narrations: one of them is that he owns him through that, because he has the right to destroy him, so he is his owner just like his other properties. The second is that he does not own him, because he is a subject of retaliation, so he does not acquire ownership of him through pardon, like a free person. According to this narration, the compensation for the crime attaches to his neck, as if he had pardoned in exchange for wealth; because the compensation for which he pardoned did not become valid for him, so he is entitled to its equivalent, like invalid contracts.

Section: Retaliation is applied between slaves regarding life, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. This was narrated from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Salim, al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, al-Zuhri, Qatadah, al-Thawri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Hanifah. Another narration was reported from Ahmad that one of the conditions of retaliation is