the ownership of its totality, such as cutting the male organ of a mudabbar slave, or cutting one of his hands or ears. This is because what is guaranteed is that which was caused to be lost, so ownership does not cease regarding the rest by guaranteeing it, just as if he had cut off nine fingers. It is in this way that one refutes what they mentioned, for the guarantee is in exchange for the destroyed part, not in exchange for the totality. 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.

Section: If the usurped slave commits a crime, his crime is guaranteed by the usurper, because it is a depreciation in the slave who committed the crime, for the reason that the indemnity (arsh) for the crime is attached to his person, so it is guaranteed by the usurper, like the rest of his depreciation. It makes no difference in that regard whether it requires retaliation (qisas) or property. He is not liable for more than the depreciation that affected the slave. If he commits a crime against his master, his crime is guaranteed by the usurper as well, because it (34) is part of his crimes, so it is guaranteed by the usurper, like a crime against a stranger.

Section: If the entity of the usurped property depreciates without its value [also depreciating], this falls into three categories. The first is that what is lost is a part with a defined substitute, such as a slave whom he castrated, or oil he boiled, or a silver ingot he struck into dirhams, such that its entity depreciated without its value [depreciating]. It is mandatory to guarantee the depreciation; so he guarantees the depreciation of the slave by his value, and the depreciation of the oil and the ingot by their like, while returning the remainder of them, because what is lost from the entity has a defined substitute, so he is liable for what it was defined by, just as if he had caused the loss of the whole. The second is that it is not defined, such as if he usurped a slave who was excessively fat, and his body became light, but his value did not depreciate, then there is nothing regarding it other than returning him, because the Shari'ah only mandated in this case what has depreciated from the value, and it did not define a substitute for it, and the value did not depreciate, so nothing is mandatory, unlike the first scenario, for what is lost has a defined substitute, so its substitute does not lapse. The third is that the depreciation is in a defined substitute, but what is lost from it are parts that are not intended [to be valued], such as juice he boiled, so its watery nature was lost, its components solidified, and its entity depreciated without its value. There are two views regarding it; one of them is that there is nothing due regarding it (35) except returning it, because the fire only removed