Some scholars say that injury to a slave is assessed according to the diminution in his value. Based on this view, we would say that, since the slave increased in value through castration, the usurper owes nothing. It will come, Allah willing, in the discussion of retaliation that the stronger view is that injury to a slave, like injury to an animal, is assessed according to the resulting diminution in value. Thus, if his right hand is cut off, his master is paid more than if his left hand were cut off—unlike a free person, for whom the compensation for the right hand is the same as that for the left.

If someone were to ask: Is the castration of human beings permissible?

The answer is: It is not permissible, because it leads to the severance of offspring, since a castrated person cannot procreate. As for castrating non-human animals, it is permissible if it serves the animal’s benefit, even if it is done to increase its price. There is no doubt that castration makes an animal’s meat better and more palatable, and this is evident in animals that are eaten. Thus, if one castrates a ram, a bull, a camel, or a stallion—that is, a male horse—there is undoubtedly benefit in it, because it improves the meat. But if the animal is not eaten, such as a donkey, for example, then the benefit of castrating it is to avert its harm. A male donkey tires out its owner: when it sees a female donkey, it rushes toward her and may cause its rider to fall. Likewise, it brays and becomes tiresome. If it is castrated, its sexual desire is subdued and this harm does not occur.

His statement, “Any loss resulting from a fall in market price is not guaranteed,” means that if this usurper usurps an item worth ten thousand, then the market price falls until it is worth only five thousand, is he liable for the five thousand or not? The author says that he is not liable, and this is the position of the school, because this