Does subsequent ownership or payment of value negate an already established *Hadd* for *Zina* committed with a female slave?

Primary text

Subsequent payment of the value of a slave after committing *Zina* with her and killing her does not negate the already established *Hadd*. This is analogous to a situation where a person buys a female slave with whom he had previously committed *Zina*; the *Hadd* is not dropped despite his established ownership. Moreover, if the perpetrator commits *Zina* with a female slave, then unlawfully seizes her (*ghasaba*), and she remains out of his possession, and he subsequently pays her value, neither of the two applicable penalties (the *Hadd* for *Zina* and the liability for the seizure/value) is dropped, particularly since the *Hadd* is not dropped even upon established, consensual ownership, making it even less likely to be dropped upon disputed circumstances.