silver, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ approved it (1). And there is the case of the man who emancipated his slave to take effect after his death—that is, he emancipated him after his lifetime—while he was in debt; so the Prophet ﷺ sold the slave to settle his debt (2). There is abundant evidence for this: the legal status of slaves is that of property which may be bought and sold, for they are assets and thus property.

His statement, “For his injuries, the amount by which his value is diminished after recovery is due,” means that, in the case of a slave’s injuries, what is due is the reduction in his value after he has recovered. Most injuries to a free person have stipulated compensations, whereas in the case of a slave, the compensation is whatever his value has diminished after recovery. That is, we appraise this slave while sound and uninjured, then appraise him after recovery, when he is impaired by the injury. The difference between the two values is the blood-money.

For example, a person assaults a slave and cuts off the thumb of his left hand, after which he recovers. How do we determine the blood-money for this finger?

We say: the slave is appraised while sound, and then appraised after recovery. If his value while sound was ten thousand dirhams, and his value with the thumb amputated is nine thousand dirhams, then the blood-money for the thumb is one thousand dirhams.

What the author mentioned—that for his injuries, the amount by which his value is diminished after recovery is due—is correct. The relied-upon position in the school, however, is that the compensation for his injuries is proportional to his value if the compensation for the same injury to a free person is stipulated; but if it is not stipulated for a free person, then it is whatever his value has diminished after recovery. An example is a slave whose right hand was cut off accidentally, and whose value before its amputation was