The blood money for the crime is either equal to or less than his value, or it is more. If it is equal to or less, the master has the choice between paying the blood money for his crime or surrendering him to the victim's guardian, who then becomes his owner. This is the position of al-Thawri, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Ishaq. It is also narrated from al-Sha'bi, 'Ata', Mujahid, 'Urwah, al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, and Hammad; because if he pays the blood money for the crime, that is what was owed to the victim, so he does not have the right to demand more. If he surrenders the slave, he has fulfilled the object to which the right was attached, and the victim's right does not attach to anything more than the person of the slave, which has been surrendered. If the victim demands that he be surrendered to him, but his master refuses, he is not compelled to do so, for the reason we mentioned. If the master offers his slave, but the perpetrator refuses to accept him and says, 'Sell him and pay me his price,' is the master obligated to do so? There are two narrations. As for if the crime is greater than his value, there are two narrations: One is that his master has the choice between paying his value or the blood money of his crime, or surrendering him; because if he pays his value, he has paid the amount of what is due from him, for the right of the victim does not exceed the slave, so if he pays his value, he has paid what is due, and he is not obligated for more than that, just as if the crime were equal to his value. The second narration is that he is obligated to surrender him unless he pays the blood money of his crime, no matter how much it reaches. This is the position of Malik; because perhaps if he is offered for sale, someone might desire him for more than his value, and if he keeps him, he has caused the loss of that excess to the victim. Shafi'i has two opinions, corresponding to the two narrations. The reasoning for the first narration is that the Law (Shari'ah) has established the option of his ransom for him, so he has the right to ransom him, and thus the obligation is the amount of his value, like other destroyed property.

Section: If the crime necessitates retaliation (qisas), and the guardian of the victim pardons him on the condition that he takes ownership of the slave, he does not take ownership of him by that; because if he does not own him by the crime [itself], then it is even more appropriate that he does not own him by the pardon. Furthermore, he is one who...