the compensation (arsh). If he is subjected to retaliation, the compensation becomes fixed, which is the proportion of his value between him as an offender and as a non-offender, and the sale is not invalidated from its inception. This is the view of the companions of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i said: He recovers the entire price, because his destruction was by a meaning that was inherent at the seller's, so it is treated as if he [the seller] destroyed him. Our response is that he perished in the possession of the buyer due to the defect that was already present in him, so it does not necessitate the recovery of the entire price, just as if he were sick and died of his illness, or was an apostate and was killed for his apostasy. What they mentioned is invalidated by what we have stated, and their analogy to his [the seller's] destruction is incorrect, because he did not destroy him, so they do not share the same underlying cause (muqtadi). If the offense warranted the amputation of his hand and it was amputated while with the buyer, he has become defective in his possession, because the right to amputation is distinct from its reality; so does this prevent him from returning him for his defect? There are two narrations regarding this. Whenever he purchases him while knowing of his defect, he has no right to return him, nor any compensation, like all other defective items, and this is the view of al-Shafi'i.

Section: The ruling for an apostate is the same as the ruling for a killer regarding the validity of his sale and all other rulings mentioned concerning him, for his killing is not absolute due to the possibility of his returning to Islam. Likewise is the killer in highway robbery (muharaba) if he repents before being apprehended. If he does not repent until he is apprehended, Abu al-Khattab said: He is like the killer in a case other than highway robbery, because he is an owned slave, whose emancipation is valid, and one possesses the right to utilize his labor, so his sale is valid, just like a non-killer. Furthermore, it is possible to derive benefit from him until the time of his killing, and one may emancipate him, thereby finalizing the loyalty (wala') of his children; thus, his sale is permissible, like a sick person from whose recovery one has despaired. The Qadi said: His sale is not valid, because his killing, destruction, and the loss of his financial value are absolute, and it is forbidden to keep him, so he becomes akin to things of no benefit like vermin and carcasses. This slight benefit leading to his eventual killing does not establish him as a site for sale, like the benefit obtained from a carcass to plug a breach or feed a dog. The first view is more correct, as he was a subject for sale, and the original principle is the persistence of that status within him, and the absoluteness of his destruction