Section: If a one-eyed person gouges out the eye of another one-eyed person, retaliation is due without disagreement, because they are equal in every respect, provided the eye is equivalent to the other in being a right or left eye. If he pardons him in exchange for blood money, he is entitled to the full amount. The same applies if he gouges it out by mistake, or if some of those entitled to retaliation pardon him, because he has removed all of his sight, so it resembles the case where he gouges out both eyes of a person with healthy vision.

Section: If a one-eyed person gouges out both eyes of a healthy person, al-Qadi said: He is given a choice; if he wishes, he may retaliate, and there is nothing due to him besides that, because he has taken all of his sight with all of his sight. If he chooses the blood money, he is entitled to one blood money, based on the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "In the two eyes, there is the blood money." And because retaliation was not impossible, the blood money is not doubled, just as if a paralyzed person cut off the hand of a healthy person, or if the head of the person inflicting the wound was smaller, or the hand of the perpetrator was deficient. Al-Qadi said: Jurisprudence dictates that two blood moneys are incumbent upon him: one for the eye that matches his own, and the second blood money for the protruding eye, because it is the eye of a one-eyed person. The correct view is what we have stated; it is the view of the majority of scholars, more consistent with the textual evidences, and more accurate in meaning.

Section: If a person with two healthy eyes gouges out the eye of a one-eyed person, he is entitled to retaliation with the like thereof, and he takes half the blood money. Ahmad explicitly stated this, because he has taken away his entire sight and removed the light for which the equivalent is a full blood money. It is impossible to fulfill the total light, since it is not possible to take two eyes for one eye, nor take a right eye for a left eye, so it is necessary to revert to the equivalent of half the light. It is possible that he is only entitled to retaliation with no addition, or to pardon in exchange for blood money, just as if a paralyzed person cut off a healthy hand; and because the excess here is not distinct, it has no substitute, like the excess of a healthy hand over a paralyzed one. This is in addition to the generality of the saying of the Almighty: {And the eye for the eye}.