in exchange for the healthy one, and the healthy one is not taken for it; because when the piercing is mutilated it becomes a deficiency in it, and a hole in an improper place is a defect. The victim is given the choice between taking the blood money for the amount of the deficiency and retaliating for the parts other than the mutilated part by leaving it on the perpetrator's ear. There are two views regarding the obligation of a judicial assessment (hukumah) for him regarding the amount of the deficiency (3). If a portion of his ear is cut off, he has the right to retaliate from the perpetrator's ear [for the amount cut from his ear] (4), and this is estimated (5) by parts; so one half is taken for a half, and one third for a third, and so on. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said: Retaliation is not valid for a portion; because it does not terminate at a limit. To us, it is possible to estimate the cut portion, and there is no bone breaking involved, so retaliation for a part of it is valid (6), like the penis, and by this, what they mentioned (7) is invalidated.

Section: The shrivelled ear (8) is taken for a healthy one. Is the healthy one taken for it? There are two views regarding this. One of them is that it is not taken for it; because it is deficient and defective, so the healthy one is not taken for it, just like a paralyzed hand and other limbs. The second is that it is taken for it; because the intended purpose of it (9) is the collection of sound, the preservation of the location of hearing, and beauty, and this is achieved by it just as it is achieved by a healthy one, unlike other limbs.

Section: If he cuts his ear and severs it, and its owner reattaches it and it adheres and stays in place, the Qadi said: Retaliation is obligatory. This is the statement of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq; because it became obligatory upon the severance, and the severance has occurred. Abu Bakr said: There is no retaliation in it. This is the statement of Malik; because it did not stay severed permanently, so he did not deserve to sever the perpetrator's ear permanently. If it falls off after that, whether soon or later, he has the right to retaliation, and he returns what he took. According to the statement of Abu Bakr, if it does not fall off: he has the blood money for the ear.