the entitlement to exact retaliation, and they do not have the right to pardon in exchange for property. The Qadi mentioned another view, that they do have that right, because the offense occurred against the property of someone other than them, so they may pardon in exchange for property, just as if he had committed an offense against a stranger. For al-Shafi'i, there are two opinions, similar to the two views. If some of the heirs pardon, the retaliation lapses. As for whether the share of the indemnity is established for those who did not pardon, there are two views. Al-Shafi'i's school of thought in this entire section is along the lines of what we have mentioned.

Section: If a pledged slave commits an offense against a slave belonging to his master, there are two situations. First, that he [the victim] is not pledged; his ruling is the same as the ruling for an offense against his master: he has the right to retaliation if the offense warrants it. If he pardons in exchange for property or otherwise, or if the offense does not warrant retaliation, it is considered void (hadran), regardless of whether the victim is a bondman, a mudabbar, or an umm walad. The second situation is that he is pledged. He is either pledged to the mortgagee of the killer or to someone else. If he is at the mortgagee of the killer and the offense warrants retaliation, the master has the right to retaliation. If he exacts retaliation, the pledge in the victim becomes void, and he owes his value to the one from whom the retaliation was exacted. If he pardons in exchange for property, or the offense warrants property, and both were pledged for a single debt for his offense, it is void, because the right attaches to each of them; so if one of them is killed, the right remains attached to the other. If each of them was pledged for a separate debt, there are four issues: First, that the two debts are equal and their values are equal. In this case, the offense is void, whether the two debts are of the same type—such as if one is one hundred dinars and the other is one thousand dirhams whose value is one hundred dinars—or of one type, because there is no benefit in considering the offense. Second issue: That the two debts differ and the values are the same, such as if the debt of one of them is one hundred and the debt of