To whom does the compensation belong if an injury is inflicted upon a *mudabbir*?

Supporting text

There is a refutation against equating the *mudabbir's* value to stand in his place, such as in the case of a mortgaged or endowed slave upon whom injury is inflicted. The difference is threefold: first, endowment and mortgage are binding obligations to which a substitute attaches, whereas *tadbir* is not binding as it can be nullified by sale. Second, the right in the *tadbir* belongs to the *mudabbir* himself, so his right is extinguished upon the failure of its object, whereas the rights in an endowment or mortgage belong to the beneficiary or mortgagee, and remain intact, so their right attaches to the substitute. Third, the right of the *mudabbir* is established only upon the master's death, so if he dies before the master, the right has not been established, and thus there is no substitute, unlike mortgage and endowment where the right is established. A fourth difference between mortgage and *mudabbir* is that the required substitute is monetary value, which cannot embody the condition of *tadbir*, and acquiring another slave is substituting for the value, not for the *mudabbir* himself, unlike a mortgage where the value itself can be mortgaged.