the market with the loss of the entity is guaranteed, and the hand of the slave is like his half, so it is as if by cutting his hand, he caused him the loss of half. If he depreciated by one thousand five hundred, and we say that the mandatory amount is what has been depreciated, then he is liable for one thousand five hundred and must return the slave. And if we say that it is the guarantee for a crime, then he is liable for one thousand and must return the slave only. If he depreciated by five hundred, he must return the slave, and whether he is liable for one thousand or five hundred is subject to two views.

Section: If one usurps a slave and another cuts off his hand, the owner may choose to hold either of them liable, because the perpetrator cut his hand and the usurper caused the depreciation in his hand. If he holds the perpetrator liable, he may hold him liable for half his value and no more, and he has no recourse against anyone because he did not hold him liable for more than what was mandatory upon him. The usurper is liable for what exceeds half the value if it depreciated by more than half, and he has no recourse against anyone. If we say that the guarantee for usurpation is the guarantee for a crime, or if it did not depreciate by more than half its value, the usurper is not liable for anything here. If he chooses to hold the usurper liable, and we say that the guarantee for usurpation is like the guarantee for a crime, he holds him liable for half the value, and the usurper has recourse against the perpetrator because the loss occurred through his action, so the liability is established upon him. If we say that the guarantee for usurpation is for the amount that it depreciated, the owner of the slave may hold him liable for the greater of the two matters; because what was found in his hand is deemed as being part of what exists, and then the usurper has recourse against the perpetrator for half the value, because it is the indemnity for his crime (31), so he is not liable for more than that.

Section: If one usurps (32) a slave and cuts off his ears, or his hands, or his male organ, or his nose, or his tongue, or his testicles, he is liable for his entire value (33) and must return the slave. Ahmad stated this explicitly, and Malik and al-Shafi'i held this opinion. Abu Hanifa and al-Thawri said: The owner is given a choice between waiting and having nothing, or taking his value, and the perpetrator then owns him, because it is a guarantee of property, so the ownership of its owner does not remain with it along with his guarantee for it, just like other properties. Our argument is that what was destroyed is a part, so its guarantee does not depend on the cessation of ownership over the whole, like cutting the male organ of a mudabbar slave, or cutting one of his hands or ears; and because what is guaranteed is the lost portion, so ownership does not cease regarding the rest by guaranteeing it, just as if he cut off nine fingers. This is how one refutes what they mentioned, for the guarantee is in exchange for the destroyed part, not in exchange for the whole. As for if these limbs are lost without a crime, then whether he guarantees them with the guarantee of destruction or by the amount that it depreciated is subject to two narrations, which were previously mentioned.