in this case, he is not obligated to provide a substitute for the pledge, because if the property is prioritized over the right of the mortgagee, then retaliation is even more so. Furthermore, retaliation is established for the predecessor as being prioritized over the right of the mortgagee, so it is likewise in the right of his heir.

Section: If the offense is against the master's mukatab (emancipation-contract slave), it is like an offense against his child, and declaring him incapable of fulfilling the contract is like the death of his child, regarding what we have mentioned. And Allah knows best.

Section: If the mortgaged slave commits an offense with the permission of his master, and he is someone who knows that the offense is forbidden and that he is not obligated to accept that from his master, it is like an offense without his permission. If, however, he is non-Arabic speaking or a child who does not know that, then the master is the killer, and the retaliation and the blood money are connected to him; the slave is not sold for it, regardless of whether the master is wealthy or destitute, just as if the master performed the killing directly. The Qadi mentioned another view: that the slave is sold if the master is destitute, because he [the slave] performed the offense. The correct [view] is the first one, because the slave is an instrument; if the offense were connected to him, he would be sold for it even if the master were wealthy. The ruling regarding the slave's confession of an offense is the same as the ruling regarding the confession of an unpledged slave, as has been explained in its place.

792 - Issue: He said: (And when a mortgaged slave is wounded or killed, the claimant in that is his master, and whatever is received by reason of that is a pledge.)

The summary of it is that when an offense is committed against a pledge, the claimant in that is his master, because he is his owner, and the indemnity (arsh) required by the offense is his property; the mortgagee merely has the right of security in it, so he becomes like a hired or deposited slave. This is the position of al-Shafi'i and others. If he neglects the demand, delays it, is absent, or has an excuse that prevents him from it, then the mortgagee may make the demand for it, because his right is connected to what necessitates it, so he has the right to claim it, just as if the offender were his master. Then, if the offense requires retaliation,