fixed in the free person, it is fixed in the slave. Thus, for his hand is half his value, and for his wound reaching the bone (mudiha) is half a tenth of his value, whether the injury diminished his value less than that or more, and the same applies to the female slave.

The general rule is that the injury to a slave must be compensated by what he has diminished in value, because the obligation is only to provide reparation for what was lost through the injury, and it cannot be compensated except by requiring the amount diminished from the value, so that becomes mandatory, just as if the injury was to his other animals or any other property. There is no requirement for anything more than that, because the right of the injured party has been compensated, so he is not entitled to anything more than what the perpetrator caused him to lose. This is the basic principle, and we know of no disagreement regarding this in matters where there is no legally fixed amount. If that which was lost through the injury is fixed in the case of a free person, such as his hand or his mudiha wound, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding it. One of them is that it also entails what he has diminished, however much it may be. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that this is the choice of al-Khallal. Al-Maymuni narrated from Ahmad that he said: He only takes the value of what it diminished from him, according to the opinion of Ibn Abbas. This is also narrated from Malik, regarding everything except his mudiha, munaqqila (a fracture that shifts the bone), hashima (a bone-breaking wound), and ja'ifa (a cavity wound); because its guarantee is the guarantee of property, so what he diminished must be paid, like livestock. Also, because what is guaranteed by value, however much it may be, some of it is guaranteed by what it diminished, like other types of property. Furthermore, the implication of the evidence is to guarantee what is lost by what it diminished, which we deviated from in cases fixed in the free person, just as we deviated from it in guaranteeing the remainder with fixed blood money; thus, in the slave, it remains in both cases according to the implication of the evidence. The manifest view of the Madhhab is that what was fixed in the free person is fixed in the slave [from his value]. Thus, for his hand, his eye, his ear, or his lip, is half his value, and for his mudiha is half a tenth of his value. Whatever obligates the blood money in a free person, such as the nose, tongue, two hands, two feet, two eyes, or two ears, obligates the value of the slave, while the master's ownership of him remains. This is narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. Something similar is narrated from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Ibn Sirin, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Shafi'i, and al-Thawri held this view. Abu Hanifa also held this view. Ahmad said: This is the view of