the victim has the right to sell the slave and invalidate the pledge, so he is in the position of a permissible pledge before it is taken into possession. An increase in the debt of the pledge before it becomes binding is permissible, and because the indemnity for the offense attaches to him, he merely transitions from the offense to the pledge. It is possible that it is not valid, because the slave was pledged for a debt, so it is not permissible to pledge him a second time for a debt other than that, just as if he had pledged him for a debt other than this one.

Abu Hanifa held the view that the liability for the offense of a pledge lies with the mortgagee; if he ransoms him, he does not recover the ransom, and if the pledger ransoms him or he is sold for the offense, the debt of the pledge lapses if it is equal to the amount of the ransom. This is based on his principle that the pledge is under the liability of the mortgagee, and further discussion on this will come, if Allah Almighty wills. If the offender is not ransomed and is sold for an offense that exhausts his value, the pledge is void. If it does not exhaust it, a portion of him is sold equal to the indemnity of the offense, and the remainder is a pledge, unless it is impossible to sell a part of him, in which case the whole is sold and the remainder of the price is made a pledge. Abu al-Khattab said: Is a portion of him sold equal to the offense, or is the whole of him sold, with the surplus of his price over the indemnity of his offense being a pledge? There are two views.

Section: If the offense is committed against the master of the slave, there are two possible situations. First, that the offense does not warrant retaliation (qisas), such as an offense of error, semi-intentional, or destruction of property. In this case, it is null (hadran), because the slave is property for his master, so no property is established for him in his own property. Second, that it warrants retaliation. There are two possibilities: either it is against the person [life] or against what is less than the person. If it is against what is less than the person, the right belongs to the master. If he pardons in exchange for property, the retaliation lapses, and no property is due, for the reasons we have mentioned. Likewise, if he pardons for something other than property. If he wishes to exact retaliation, he may do so, because the master does not have the right to commit an offense against his slave, so this is established for him by his [the slave's] offense against him, and because retaliation is required as a deterrent, and there is a need to deter him from his master. If he exacts retaliation, he owes his value, which becomes a pledge in his place and a payment toward the debt, because he removes him from being a pledge by his own choice, so he owes his replacement, just as if he had manumitted him. If the offense is against the person [life], then the heirs have