Section: If a person whose hand has been cut off (al-aqta') cuts off the hand of someone who has two hands, retaliation is due from him. If the foot or hand of the person whose hand has been cut off is cut off, he is entitled to retaliation or half the blood money, because the hand of the person whose hand was cut off does not perform the role of his two hands in terms of utility and grasping, nor does it suffice in the emancipation (of a slave) for an expiation, unlike the eye of a one-eyed person, for it performs the role of both his eyes. Al-Qadi said: If the cut-off limb was initially cut off unjustly or as retaliation, then for the remaining one there is half the blood money, by one (unanimous) report. If the first was cut off in the path of Allah, there are two reports regarding the second: one of them is half the blood money, and the second is a full blood money, because he has incapacitated his benefits from both members entirely. As for if a person whose hand has been cut off cuts off the hand of someone who is not, if we say that there is a full blood money in the hand of the person whose hand has been cut off, then there is no retaliation. But if we say that the blood money is not complete therein, then retaliation is mandatory therein. What is appropriate in jurisprudence is what we mentioned first, and the reasoning based on the loss of the benefit of the two members is invalidated by the case where the first was cut off as retaliation, and the analogy to the eye of a one-eyed person is incorrect due to the difference between them. As for if the ear of someone who had one of his ears cut off is cut, he is entitled to nothing but half the blood money, by one report. If he (the person whose ear was cut) cuts the ear of someone with two ears, retaliation is mandatory upon him without disagreement that we know of, neither in the School (Madhhab) nor elsewhere, because the benefit of each ear is not linked to the other.

Section: The eyelid is taken for an eyelid, according to the saying of the Almighty: {And wounds are subject to retribution}. And because retaliation is possible therein, as it terminates at a joint. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The eyelid of a person with sight is taken for the eyelid of a person with sight and a blind person, and the eyelid of a blind person is taken for either of them, because they are equal in being free from defect, and the absence of sight is a defect in something else, which does not prevent taking one for the other, like an ear when hearing is missing from it.

1449 - Issue; He said: (And the tooth for the tooth).