For he has added a severing that the Law (Shar') did not permit to be exacted, and thus it is prohibited. This applies equally (27) to whether he severed [the limb] and then killed him immediately after, or whether he severed [the limb] and the effect spread to the soul (death).

Section: As for if (28) he severs the right [hand] and the severer has no right [hand], or the hand and he has no hand, or gouges out the eye and he has no eye, and the injured party dies, he shall be killed with the sword in the neck, and there is no retaliation for his limb. I do not (29) know of any disagreement regarding this; because retaliation is only from the like of the destroyed member, which is absent here, and because retaliation is the act of doing the like of what the perpetrator did (30), and there is no way to achieve that. Furthermore, if he were to sever [the limb] and then remit the [retaliation for] killing, he would become a person exacting [retaliation] for a leg from someone for whom he did not sever a like [leg], or an ear in place of an eye, and this is not permissible. This proves the invalidity of the second viewpoint in the section before it.

Section: If he kills him with something other than the sword, such as if he kills him with a stone, by demolition, by drowning, or by strangulation, is retaliation exacted by the like of his act? There are two narrations regarding this. One of them is that he may do so; this is the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i. The second is that he does not exact it except with the sword in the neck. This is also the position of Abu Hanifa regarding the case where he kills him with a heavy piece of iron, according to one of the two narrations attributed to him, or if he wounds him and he dies. The rationale for both narrations is what was mentioned at the beginning of the issue, and because it is not guaranteed with this that there will be no excess over what the perpetrator did, so retaliation is not mandatory by the like of his tool, just as if he severed a limb with a dull tool, a poisoned one, or with a sword; he does not exact [retaliation] with its like. Furthermore, this is not used to kill an apostate, so retaliation is not exacted with it, just as if he killed him by forcing him to drink wine, or by sorcery (31). There is no derivation (tafri') based on this narration. As for the other narration, if he does to him the like of his act and he does not (32) die, he kills him with the sword. This is one of the two positions of al-Shafi'i. The second position is that he repeats that act upon him until he dies from it; because he killed him with it, he is entitled to kill him with its like.