Section: If a crime resulting in a financial liability is committed against the endowed property, it is obligatory [to receive compensation]; for its financial value has not been nullified. Even if its financial value were nullified, the indemnity for the crime committed against it would not be nullified, for the indemnity of a crime against a free person is obligatory. If [the endowed person] is killed, its value is obligatory. The beneficiary of the endowment does not have the right to pardon this [indemnity], because he does not have exclusive rights to it; rather, an equal to the victim should be purchased with it and remain an endowment. Some Shafi'ites said: The beneficiary of the endowment has exclusive rights to the value if we say that he owns the endowed property, because it is a substitute for his property. Our position is that it is property to which he does not have exclusive rights, so he does not have exclusive rights to its substitute, like a jointly-owned mortgaged slave. The explanation for the lack of exclusivity is evident, for the right of the second generation is attached to it, so it is not permissible to invalidate it. We do not know the extent of what is due to him from it so that he might pardon any of it, thus pardoning any of it is not valid, just as if a man destroyed a mortgaged item, its value would be taken from him and made a mortgage, and it would not be valid for either of them to pardon it. If the crime is purely intentional and committed by an equal, the apparent position is that retaliation (qisas) is not obligatory, because it is a subject to which the beneficiary of the endowment does not have exclusive rights, so it is not permissible to seek retaliation from the killer, like a jointly-owned slave. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said: This is for the Imam [to decide]. If the slave's hand or one of his limbs is cut off, then retaliation is his, and he may execute it, because no one else shares it with him. If the cutting does not warrant retaliation, or it does but it is pardoned, half of his value becomes obligatory. If it is possible to purchase a complete slave with it, [that is done]; otherwise, a share of a slave is purchased with it.

Section: It is permissible to marry an endowed slave girl, because it is a contract regarding her utility, similar to leasing. Furthermore, the beneficiary of the endowment does not own the right to utilize this benefit, so he is not harmed by someone else acquiring it. Her guardian is the beneficiary of the endowment, because she is his property, and the dowry (mahr) belongs to him, because it is a substitute for her utility, similar to the wage in a lease. It is also possible that it is not permissible to marry her, because it is a contract for her utility for her entire life, which leads to the loss of her utility for the second generation. Also, marriage entails obligations, such as the duty to allow the husband to enjoy her and [her staying overnight with him], so her service during the night is lost to the second generation.