The scholars are unanimous regarding retaliation for the tooth, based on the verse and the hadith of al-Rubayyi', and because retaliation therein is possible, as it is bounded in itself; thus, retaliation is mandatory therein, like the eye. A sound tooth is taken for a sound one, and a broken tooth is taken for a sound one, because he takes part of his right. As for whether he takes the compensation (arsh) for the remainder alongside retaliation, there are two views, which we have mentioned previously.

Section: Retaliation is not taken except from the tooth of one who has reached the age of 'ithghar' (the falling out of primary teeth), meaning those whose deciduous teeth have fallen out and then grown back. It is said of one whose deciduous teeth have fallen out that he has been 'thughira' (a victim of tooth loss), and he is 'mathghur'. When they grow back, it is said: 'athghara' (he has grown new teeth). These are two linguistic forms. If the tooth of one who has not reached the age of 'ithghar' is extracted, there is no immediate retaliation from the perpetrator. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), because they typically grow back, so there is no retaliation for them, like hair. Then, if the replacement for the tooth grows back in its place, similar to it in its qualities, there is nothing due from the perpetrator, just as if he plucked a hair and it grew back. If it grows back tilted from its place or changed from its original quality, he is liable for a 'hukumah' (assessed compensation); because if it had not grown back, he would be liable for the tooth, so if it returns deficient, he is liable for what is deficient. [And if it returns short, he is liable for what is deficient] from it by calculation; thus, for its third, a third of its blood money is due, and for its quarter, a quarter, and so on. If it grows back while blood is flowing, it is subject to 'hukumah', because it is a deficiency resulting from his act. If the time for its regrowth passes and it does not grow back, the experts in medicine are asked. If they say: 'It is despaired of ever growing back,' then the victim has the choice between retaliation or the blood money of the tooth. If the victim dies before it is despaired of it growing back, there is no retaliation, because the entitlement to it is not certain, so this serves as a doubt (shubha) in warding it off, and the blood money becomes mandatory because the extraction occurred and the regrowth is doubted. It is possible that if he dies before the time of its regrowth arrives, nothing is due, because the norm is its regrowth, so it resembles the case where he shaved his hair and he died before it grew back. As for if he extracted the tooth of one who has reached the age of 'ithghar', retaliation is mandatory for him immediately, because the apparent state is that it will not grow back. This is the view of some of the companions of al-Shafi'i. Al-Qadi said: The experts are asked, and if they say: 'It will not grow back,' then he has...