What is the ruling regarding compensation when a free man severs the hand of a slave, and the slave subsequently gains freedom and then dies?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If a free man severs the hand of a slave, and the slave is subsequently manumitted and then dies, execution (*qisas*) is not due because equality (*takafu*) was absent at the time of the transgression. The assailant owes the *diyah* of a free person, taking into consideration the state at the time of stabilization. This view is attributed to Ibn Hamid and is the position of the Shafi'i school.
Supporting text
The master (*sayyid*) is entitled to the lesser of two amounts: either half of the slave's value or half of the *diyah* for a free person, with the remainder going to the heirs. This is because if half the value is less, it is what was within the master's possession, and he cannot claim more than that, as the excess resulted from the slave's newfound freedom, which he has no right to. If the lesser amount is the full *diyah*, he is not entitled to more than that because the reduction in value occurred due to an action from the master's side, specifically his act of emancipation. Al-Qadi mentioned that Imam Ahmad stipulated in one narration that if someone blinds a slave, and the slave is then freed and dies, the assailant owes the slave's value to the master. This implies consideration based on the state at the time of the injury, which is the chosen opinion of Abu Bakr, Al-Qadi, and Abu Al-Khattab.