And according to the statement of Abu Bakr and al-Qadi, the value of the slave is due to his master, considering the state of his injury. If both wounds spread, there is no retaliation due for the life nor for the hand; because he died from two wounds, one of which warrants retaliation and one which does not, so retaliation is not due, just as if one had wounded him with two wounds, one intentionally and one by mistake. However, retaliation is due for the leg because he cut it from a free man. If he then exacts retaliation from him, half of the blood-money becomes due, because he died from his injury, and he has already received from him that which corresponds to half of the blood-money. The master is entitled to the lesser of the two: half the value or half the blood-money. If half the blood-money exceeds half the value, the surplus is for the heirs. If his heirs pardon the retaliation, they also have the right to half the blood-money. If the one who cut the leg is not the one who cut the hand, and both wounds heal, then the one who cut the hand owes half the value to his master, and the one who cut the leg owes retaliation for it, or half the blood-money. If both wounds spread to his life, then there is no retaliation upon the first; because he cut the hand of a slave, and he owes half the blood-money of a free man, because the victim was a free man at the time of the establishment of the injury. Upon the second is retaliation for the life if [they both intended] the cutting; because he participated in the killing intentionally and wrongfully, so he is like the partner of the father. It is derived that [there is no retaliation] upon him for the life, because the soul departed from the spread of two cuts, one warranting retaliation and one not, based on the [case of the] partner of the father. If he pardons him in exchange for the blood-money, then he owes half the blood-money of a free man. If we state that retaliation is due for the life, two narrations are derived regarding its obligation for the limb. If we state it is not due for the life, then it is due for the leg.

Section: If one gouges out the eye of a slave, then he is emancipated, then another cuts off his hand, then another cuts off his leg, there is no retaliation upon the first, whether his wound heals or spreads. As for the other two, retaliation is due upon them for the two limbs [if the] cutting of them stopped, or their blood-money if he pardons them. If all the injuries spread, then retaliation for the life is upon them, because their injury became a life [taken]. There is a difference of opinion regarding that and regarding retaliation for a limb, which we have already mentioned. If he pardons them, the blood-money is due from them in thirds, and concerning what the master is entitled to,