what is established by his contract. Furthermore, the right of the offense is specific to the entity [the slave], and it lapses upon its loss, whereas the right of the mortgagee does not lapse upon the loss of the entity, nor is it specific to it; thus, his attachment to it is lighter and lesser. If his offense warrants retaliation (qisas), the victim is entitled to exact it. If he exacts retaliation, the pledge lapses, just as if it had perished. If he pardons in exchange for property, it attaches to the slave's person and becomes like an offense necessitating property. The master is then told: You are given the choice between ransoming him or surrendering him for sale. If he chooses to ransom him, for how much does he ransom him? There are two narrations: One is for the lesser of the two: his value or the indemnity for his offense; because if the indemnity is less, the victim is not entitled to more than the indemnity for his offense, and if the value is less, he is not liable for more than that, because what he pays is a replacement for the slave, and he is not liable for more than his value, just as if he had destroyed him. The second is that he ransoms him for the indemnity of his offense, regardless of the amount; because someone might desire him and purchase him for more than his value. If he ransoms him, he remains a pledge as he was, because the right of the mortgagee exists due to the presence of its cause, and the right of the victim was merely prioritized due to its strength; thus, when it ceases, the ruling of the pledge appears, similar to the right of one who has no pledge alongside the right of a mortgagee in the estate of an insolvent person. When the mortgagee relinquishes his right, the ruling of the other appears. If he refuses, the mortgagee is told: You are given the choice between ransoming him or surrendering him. If he chooses to ransom him, for how much does he ransom him? There are two narrations. If he ransoms him with the permission of the pledger, he recovers it from him, because he fulfilled the right on his behalf with his permission, so he recovers it, just as if he had paid his debt with his permission. If he ransoms him voluntarily, he recovers nothing. If he intended recovery, can he recover it? There are two scholarly views, based on the case where one pays another's debt without his permission. If he pays more in the ransom than what is required, he does not recover the excess, by unanimous agreement. The school of al-Shafi'i is as we mentioned in this section, except that he does not recover what he ransomed him with without his permission, by unanimous agreement. If the pledger stipulated to him that he may recover, he recovers it, by unanimous agreement. If he paid it with his permission without the stipulation of recovery, there are two views, and this is a principle mentioned elsewhere. If he ransoms him and stipulates that he be a pledge for the ransom along with the first debt, the judge [Al-Qadi] said: This is permitted, because