This is the opinion of Abu Bakr. Likewise, he said: If the retaliator cut off the other hand out of hostility, the retaliation would be extinguished, because they are equal in pain, blood-money, and name, so they offset each other and fall away. This is also because requiring retaliation [in this case] would lead to cutting off both hands of each one of them, causing the loss of the utility of the species, and inflicting great harm on both of them. There is no derivation from this opinion due to its clarity. Each of the two cuttings is subject to liability through its complication (sirayah), because it is an act of hostility. Ibn Hamid said: If he took it out of hostility, each one of them has the right of retaliation against the other. If he took it by mutual consent, there is no retaliation for the second, due to its owner's satisfaction with offering it and his permission to cut it off. Regarding its obligation in the first [instance], there are two views: one of them is that it is extinguished, for the reason we mentioned. The second is that it is not extinguished, because he was satisfied with leaving it for a compensation that was not established for him, so he is entitled to return to his right, just as if he had sold him an item for wine and handed it over to him. According to this, he has the right of retaliation, except that he does not retaliate until the other [hand] has healed, and the perpetrator is entitled to the blood-money for his hand. If the victim is entitled to the blood-money for his hand, and the two blood-moneys are equal, they offset each other. If one of them is greater than the other, as with a man and a woman, the excess is due to the one entitled to it.

Section: If the retaliator says to the perpetrator: "Extend your right hand for me to cut it off," and he extends his left hand, and he cuts it off, then according to the opinion of Abu Bakr, this suffices, whether he cut it off while knowing [it was the left] or not knowing. According to the opinion of Ibn Hamid, if he extended it intentionally, knowing that it is his left hand and that it does not suffice, then there is no liability upon the cutter, nor is there blood-retaliation (qawad); because he offered it by extending it [to him] not by way of compensation. An action may stand in place of speech, evidenced by the fact that there is no difference between his saying: "Take this and eat it," and him requesting that from him, so he gives it to him. This differs from the case where he cuts off a person's hand while he is silent, because no offering was found on his part. One must look at the retaliator: if he did that while knowing the situation, he is disciplined (ta'zir), because he is forbidden from doing so by the right of Allah the Exalted. Does the retaliation for the right hand fall away? There are two views: one of them is that it falls away, because the one who cut the left [hand] transgressed by cutting it, and because he cut one of his hands, he does not have the authority to cut the other hand, just as if he cut off the left hand of a thief in place of his right, for he does not have the authority to cut off his right [hand]. The second view is that it does not fall away, which is the school of Al-Shafi'i. They distinguished between retaliation and the cutting of a thief in three ways: First, the hadd (prescribed penalty) is based on remission, unlike retaliation. Second, the left [hand] is not cut off for theft even if his right is missing, because it causes the loss of the utility of the species in the hadd, unlike retaliation. Third, if the hand is lost due to gangrene or retaliation, the cutting for theft falls away, so it is possible that it falls away due to the cutting of the left [hand], unlike retaliation, for it does not fall away; rather, it shifts to the substitute. However, his right [hand] is not cut off until his left has healed, lest it lead to the loss of his life. If it is said: Does it not hold that if he cut the right hand of a man and the left of another, one of them is not delayed until the other heals? We say: The difference between them is that both cuttings are due as retaliation, so we combined them. In our issue, one of them is not due, so we did not combine them. Thus, when the left [hand] heals, we cut the right. If the cutting of the left [hand] resulted in his death, it is considered as [a case of] unintentional shedding of blood (hadran), and the blood-money for the right hand is due from his estate, due to the impossibility of carrying out the retaliation upon his death. If the one from whom retaliation is taken says: "I did not know it was the left," or "I thought it would suffice for the right," one must look at the executor: if he knew it was his left [hand] and that it would not count as retaliation, he is liable for its blood-money and is disciplined. Some of the Shafi'is said: He is subject to retaliation because he cut it while knowing that it...