If the injury to a slave progresses to cause death after manumission, is the full *diyah* of a free person due to the heirs?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
The compensation due is determined by what the progression of the injury ultimately leads to, not merely what the initial injury would have caused. Evidence for this is that if someone's hands and feet are severed and the injury progresses to cause death, the assailant is not obligated beyond a single *diyah*. Similarly, if severing a finger progresses to cause death, the full *diyah* becomes obligatory. Therefore, if the injury progresses to cause the death of a free Muslim, his full *diyah* is obligatory.
Supporting text
Abu Al-Khattab stated that if one severs the hand of a *Dhimmi* (protected non-Muslim) who subsequently embraces Islam and dies, the assailant owes the *diyah* of a *Dhimmi*. Similarly, if one severs the hand of a slave, and the master frees him and he dies, the assailant owes the master the slave's value. This is because the ruling on execution (*qisas*) is considered based on the state at the time of the injury, not the state during the progression of the injury. However, the former position, based on the full *diyah* being due because the resulting death of a free Muslim is guaranteed, is deemed more correct, God willing. Regarding the statement of Imam Ahmad that the assailant owes the slave's value if he blinds a slave, there is no dispute; the dispute lies only in whether the remainder beyond the slave's value, constituting the *diyah* of a free person, is due to the heirs, which Imam Ahmad did not explicitly mention.