What is the ruling regarding the *diyah* if a Muslim severs the hand of a Zoroastrian who subsequently becomes a Christian, and we hold that retribution is applicable?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If a Muslim severs the hand of a Zoroastrian who then converts to Christianity, and the ruling is that retribution (*qisas*) is applicable, the blood money (*diyah*) due is that of a Christian.
Supporting text
The positions attributed to Abu Bakr and Al-Qadi dictate that in the first scenario (Christian turning Zoroastrian), the *diyah* of a Christian is due, and in the second scenario (Zoroastrian turning Christian), the *diyah* of a Zoroastrian is due. This adheres to the principle established for someone who injures a dhimmi slave who subsequently converts to Islam and gains freedom: the liability remains based on the status at the time of the injury, requiring compensation equivalent to that of a dhimmi slave.