enslaved person finds someone’s car and burns it, or finds a book and burns it, or finds bread and eats it.

His statement, “without his master’s permission”: if his master permits him and says, “Destroy the car,” or, “Take the bread belonging to someone else,” then this has a different ruling, which we shall mention, Allah willing.

His statement, “the liability attaches to his person,” means that it attaches to the enslaved person himself. Is there another form of liability? Yes: it may attach to his master’s financial liability. This is the case when he destroys property with his master’s permission, for then the compensation is due from the master’s financial liability.

The difference between the two is that, when it attaches to the master’s financial liability, the master is required to pay without qualification, and no consideration is given to the enslaved person. Thus, if the property destroyed is worth one million dirhams, while the enslaved person, if sold, would be worth no more than one thousand dirhams, we require payment from the master, since it attaches to his financial liability. In that case, we pay no attention whatsoever to the value of the enslaved person; rather, we take the compensation from the master.

But when it attaches to his person, it is subject to the rulings the author mentions in his statement:

“His master may choose either to ransom him by paying the assessed compensation for his offense, to hand him over to the injured party, who then takes ownership of him, or to sell him and pay his price.” Thus, the master has a choice between these three options:

First: his statement, “to ransom him.” He calls it a ransom because the liability for the offense attaches to the enslaved person himself; thus, when the master pays what is due for the offense, it is as though he has ransomed him.

Second: his statement, “or to hand him over to the injured party, who then takes ownership of him,” meaning: