408 F I N E S. Book L.
the value ; for here it is poffible to afcertain the deficiency between
the recompence for the flave and the recompence for a freeman by reverting
to the value, which is fhort of the fine ; and regard is paid
to that accordingly. It is otherwife where the value of the flave exceeds
the fine ; for it is here impoflible to afcertain the deficiency with
regard to the value, as that exceeds the value of a freeman, namely,
the fine, which fixes the value of a freeman at ten thoufand dims.
(T h e fine for a flave is eftablifhed at a rate Jh ortof the fine for a freeman,
in order to evince the inferiority of his rank ; and the difference
is fixed at ten dirms, on the authority o f Abdoola Ibn Abbas.')
T h e hand o f F o r the hand of a flave half his value is incurred, provided th a t
counted 'fo r do not exceed four thoufand nine hundred and ninety-five dirms ; th e
MfhisvalM f e s l a man being equivalent to half his perfon. In fhort, the va-
as far as four fie , with refpeft to a flave, is the fame as the Jine with refpedt to a
t ou an nine freeman . anq therefore, in all cafes where a-fine is due for a freeman,
the value is due for a flave ; where an half fine is due on account of
the one, an half o f the value is due on account of the other ; and fi>.
forth ;— becaufe the value of a flave is fimilar to the fine for a freeman,
as being (like that) a recompence for his blood..
hundred and
ninety-five
dirms.
Cafe of a If a perfon wilfully flrike off the hantl of a flave, and the flave’s
tóng maim- maffer afterwards emancipate him, and he then die in confequence of
ed, and then the maiming, in that cafe, provided the freedman have other heirs 1
emancipated, - ° v . . • m
dies of the beiides his matter, retaliation is not incurred by the offender ;—
whereas, if he have no other heirs, it mu ft be inflicted.. This is according
to Haneefa and Aboo Yoofaf. Mohammed maintains that retaliation
is not incurred in either cafe ; but that a mulCt for the hand
due from the maimer, together with any deficiency occafioned, by
the maiming, in the value of the flave, between the time of difmem-
herment and emancipation,.—and the reft of his value is altogether remitted.
T h u s ,. for inftance,. i f the value o f the flave, at the time
of
C hap. IV. F: I N E m
of difmemberment be one hundred dirms; in this cafe one half o f his
value [fifty dirms] is incurred by the difmembefment, and then, if,
at the time of his emancipation, his value have diminifhed to the
amount of ten dirms, thofe ten are alfo incurred; and thus fixty dirms
are due, and forty are remitted. Retaliation is not incurred on the
firmer fuppofition, [that is, fuppofing the freedman to leave other
heirs befides his mafter,] according to all the do&ors ■, becaufe it is in
this cafe uncertain who is the claimant of right; (for retaliation is incurred
on the occurrence o f the death, that being at the fame time referable
to the wound; and therefore, if regard be paid only to the time o f the
wound, the majier is the claimant; or if, on the other hand, regard be paid
to the time of tht death, the heirs are the claimants;) and fuch being the
cafe, it is impoflible to exaCt retaliation, which therefore utterly ceafes,
— infomuch that i f both parties [the mafter and the heirs] were to
unite in claiming retaliation, ftill it is not to be inflicted, as their coalition
does not difpel the doubt, the right of the mafter having ex-
ifted at the time of the wound, not at the time of the death, and that
of the heir? (on the contrary) at the time of the death, not at the
time of the wound.—The reafons alleged by Mohammed why retaliation
is not to be inflicted in the inftance in which he differs from the two
Elders, (that is,- where the flave leaves no other heirs than his mafter,)
are twofold.— F i r s t , the grounds of authority for exacting retaliation
are here various; for, looking to the time of the wound, the ground
is, the mafter’s right of property in his flave ; whereas, looking to
the time of the death, it is, the Willa of manumiflion * ; andadiver-
fity in the grounds is the fame as a difference in the claimants, in all
matters where caution is neceflary, fuch as punifhment or retaliation,
or as where, for inftance, a man fays to the owner of a female flave,
“ You have fold me this flave for fo much,” and the other replies,
“ No ! ,1 have contracted her to you in marriage,” —in which cafe it
* W h ich entitles the emancipator to feek fatisfadtion for the death o f his freedman.
(See V.ol. I II. p. 436.)
VOL. IV. GJ oo' <or IS