What is the legal ruling regarding a master who severs the hand of his slave, then emancipates him, and the wound heals?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
There is no retribution (qisas) or guarantee (daman) against the master. This is because the severance was performed while the victim was his property. The consequence established upon healing relates only to the injury itself. If the slave dies later due to the spreading infection (sarayah) of the wound after emancipation, there is no qisas because the initial felony was committed against his own slave.
Supporting text
There are two differing opinions concerning liability for damages if the slave dies from the spreading infection after manumission. The first view holds that nothing is due because the death resulted from an injury that was not guaranteed (as it was against his own slave), akin to death resulting from the spreading of amputation in a prescribed punishment (hadd) or retribution (qisas). Furthermore, the severance is construed as homicide against his slave, for which no guarantee is due, similar to if he had not freed him (following the view of Abu Bakr). The second view mandates the master compensate the estate for the difference between the full blood-money (diya) and the established partial compensation (arsh) for the severed hand. This is because the death occurred while the victim was free due to an unlawful severing, thus mandating compensation as if the perpetrator were a stranger, though the arsh is waived as it was against his own property.