retaliation immediately. If they say: "It is hoped that it will return" until a time they specify, retaliation is not taken until that time arrives. This is the view of some of the companions of al-Shafi'i, because it potentially could return, so it resembles the tooth of one who has not reached the age of 'ithghar'. Once this is established, if it does not return afterward, there is no dispute. But if it returns, no retaliation or blood money is due. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and one of the two views of al-Shafi'i. He said in the other: "The compensation (arsh) does not lapse," because this tooth is not typically replaced; if it returns, it is a new gift, and therefore its return is not awaited in matters of indemnity. Our position is that it is a tooth that returned, so the compensation falls, like the tooth of one who has not reached the age of 'ithghar'. The rarity of its occurrence does not prevent the application of its ruling when it occurs. Accordingly, if he has taken the compensation, he must return it, and if he has fulfilled the retaliation, it is not permissible to extract this [new] tooth as retaliation, because he did not intend aggression. If the perpetrator's tooth returns, but the victim's tooth does not, there are two views. The first is that it is not to be extracted, so that he does not take two teeth for one, for God Almighty said: "And the tooth for the tooth." The second is that it is to be extracted, even if it returns many times, because he extracted his tooth and destroyed it, so he had the right to the destruction of his tooth. The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views similar to these.

Section: If he extracted a tooth and then retaliation was taken against him, then the victim's tooth returned, and the perpetrator extracted it a second time, there is nothing due upon him; because when the victim's tooth returned, the perpetrator was owed the blood money for his tooth. So when he extracted it, the blood money became due [from the perpetrator] to the victim, so each of them became entitled to the blood money of a tooth, and they compensate each other.

1450 - Issue; He said: "And if he breaks part of it, he shall file down a similar amount from the perpetrator's tooth."

Its summary is that retaliation is applicable for a part of a tooth, because al-Rubayyi' broke the tooth of a slave girl, and the Prophet