against someone else. The second is that the 'aqilah does not bear it; because he has no excuse, so it resembles purely intentional crime.

Section: As for the error of an Imam or judge in matters other than judgment and ijtihad, it is upon his 'aqilah without dispute, if it is of the type that the 'aqilah bears. Regarding what results from his ijtihad, there are two narrations: One is that it is also upon his 'aqilah, due to what is narrated from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he sent for a woman who was mentioned for evil, and she miscarried her fetus. Umar said to Ali: "I adjure you, do not leave until you distribute it among your people." Also, because he is a perpetrator, his error is upon his 'aqilah, like anyone else. The second is that it is from the Public Treasury (Bayt al-Mal). This is the school of al-Awza'i, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq; because error is frequent in their rulings and ijtihad, and assigning the blood money to their 'aqilah would be oppressive to them. Furthermore, because he is a deputy of Allah the Exalted in His rulings and actions, the indemnity for his crime is from the wealth of Allah, Glory be to Him. Shafi'i has two opinions, corresponding to the two narrations.

1465 - Issue; he said: (And if a slave commits a crime, it is upon his master to pay the blood money for him or surrender him; if the crime is more than his value, the master is not liable for more than his value).

This refers to a crime that is compensated with wealth, either because it does not necessitate anything but wealth, or because it is a crime necessitating retaliation, but it was pardoned in exchange for wealth. The crime of a slave attaches to his person, for he is not without it attaching to his person, or his own liability, or the liability of the master, or that nothing is obligatory. It is not possible to invalidate it, as it is the crime of a human being, so it must be considered like the crime of a free person. Furthermore, the crime of a minor or a madman is not invalidated, despite their excuse and lack of legal responsibility, so the crime of a slave is more entitled [to this consideration]. It is not possible for it to attach to his own liability, because that would lead to its invalidation or the delaying of the right of the victim indefinitely, nor to the liability of the master, because he did not commit the crime. Thus, it is determined that it attaches to the person of the slave, and because the guarantee is an obligation of his crime, so it attaches to his person, like retaliation. Then it does not...