taking his resulting disfigurement into account. It has also been said that he redeems him by paying whichever is greater: the prescribed compensation for that wound or the amount by which the wound has diminished his value, taking his resulting disfigurement into account. This is because, in the case of slaves, these three wounds are treated alike whether inflicted accidentally or deliberately. In this category, the offence may be established by two male witnesses, one male witness and two female witnesses, an oath together with one witness, or the slave’s own admission made at the time of the offence, according to Ibn al-Qāsim, contrary to Ibn Nāfiʿ’s opinion.

Section

As for the second category—where one slave deliberately kills another or deliberately wounds him in a manner that entails retaliation—then the slain slave’s master … or by paying the amount by which the wound has diminished his value, if it has diminished it, unless it is a mūdihah (a wound exposing the bone). In that case, he redeems him by paying one-twentieth of the wounded slave’s value if the wound heals without disfigurement. If it heals with disfigurement, the difference of opinion already mentioned applies.

Section

This applies when the killing or wounding is established by the testimony of two witnesses. If there is only one witness, then, according to Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—the master swears an oath together with that witness, whether he seeks retaliation or monetary compensation. Ibn Sahnūn recorded this. Asbagh said in al-ʿUtbiyyah that if the master seeks monetary compensation, the master swears the oath; if he seeks retaliation, the slave swears it. This is also the opinion of al-Mughīrah al-Makhzūmī. If the offence is established solely by the slave’s own admission, retaliation is exacted against him on the strength of his statement, since his admission is not regarded with suspicion. Some transmitters have related