the second [one], the value of the second murdered slave also attaches to his person, and he is to be sold for both of them, and his price is divided according to the value of the two; we do not prioritize the first in [receiving the] value, as we prioritized him in retaliation; because retaliation cannot be divided between them, whereas value can be divided (23). If it is said: "The right of the first is earlier," we say: "Precedence is not taken into account, just as if he destroyed the property (24) of a group, one after another." As for if a slave kills a slave owned by two partners, they both have the right to retaliation and pardon. If one of them pardons, retaliation is forfeited, and their right shifts to [the] value; because retaliation cannot be divided. If he kills two slaves belonging to one man, he [the owner] has the right to exact retaliation from him for one of them, whichever it may be, and his right to the other is forfeited, or he may pardon him (25) in exchange for property, and the values of both (26) attach to his person.

Section: An absolute (qinn) slave is killed in retaliation for a mukatab (slave under a contract of manumission), and a mukatab is killed for him. Each of them is killed for a mudabbar (slave promised freedom upon the master's death) and an umm al-walad (a slave who has borne a child for her master), and a mudabbar and an umm al-walad are killed for each of them; because all of them are slaves, so they enter into the generality of His, the Almighty's, saying: {And a slave for a slave}. The fact that a mukatab is a slave has been indicated by the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "The mukatab is a slave as long as a dirham of his contract remains" (27). This is the same whether the mukatab has paid anything from his contract or has not paid, and whether he possesses what he is to pay or does not possess it, unless we say: "When he possesses what he is to pay, he has become free." In that case, he is not killed for the slave because he is free, so he is not killed for a slave. If he has paid three-quarters of the contract price, he is not killed for him either; because he becomes free, and whoever does not rule for his freedom except upon the payment of the entire contract, permits killing him for him. Abu Hanifa said: "If a slave kills a mukatab who has estate and an heir other than his master, he is not killed for him; because at the time of the wounding, the one entitled was the master, and at the time of death, it was the heir, and retaliation is only due to the one whose right is established at both points." Our position is the words of the Almighty: {A soul for a soul}, and His words: {A slave for a slave}. And because if he were an absolute slave, retaliation would have been due for his killing; so if he is a mukatab, it is more appropriate, just as if he left no heir. What they mentioned is something they built upon their own principles, and we do not concede it.