was not permitted to cut it. As for us, he cut it with the consent of its owner, so retaliation is not due upon him, just as if he knew that the one granting it [was doing so]. If he was ignorant, there is no disciplinary punishment (ta'zir) upon him, but he is liable for the blood-money, because he offered it to him in the manner of a gift, so it was guaranteed upon him. Furthermore, it is a guaranteed item even if the cutter had known of it, and what is due as a guarantee in intentional cases is also due in erroneous cases, like the destruction of property. Retaliation for the right [hand] remains his right, and it shall not be cut until the left [hand] has healed. Once it has healed, he has the right to cut the right [hand]. If he pardons, the substitute becomes due, and they settle the accounts. If the left [hand] resulted in his death, it is guaranteed by the full blood-money, and since the cutting of the right [hand] has become impossible, and he is entitled to half the blood-money, they settle the accounts for that, and the remaining half of the blood-money belongs to the heirs of the perpetrator.

If they disagree regarding the offering of it, and the perpetrator says: "I only offered it as a substitute for the right [hand]," while the victim says: "You offered it without any compensation," or he says: "I put it out in a state of confusion," and the other says: "No, you did so knowingly," the word is that of the perpetrator, because he is more knowledgeable of his own intention, and because the outward reality is that a person would not offer his limb for cutting as a voluntary act while he is already owed a due cutting. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i. If the one offering the left [hand] is insane, such as if he became insane after the retaliation became due against him, then the one who cuts it is liable for its blood-money via retaliation if he was knowing, or by blood-money if he was mistaken; because the consent of an insane person is not a doubt (shubhah).

If the one entitled to retaliation is insane, and the one against whom retaliation is due is sane, and he offered his left or right [hand] to him and he cut it, it is considered lost as if it were wasted (hadr); because he cannot validly perform the execution [of retaliation], and the offering to him is not permissible, nor is there any liability upon him, because he destroyed it with the consent of its owner. However, if the one cut was the right [hand], and the execution of retaliation for it became impossible due to its loss, then the insane person is entitled to its blood-money. If the insane person leaped upon him and cut the hand that is not subject to retaliation, then his 'aqilah (agnate kin) is liable for its blood-money, and he is entitled to retaliation for the other [hand]. If he cut the other [hand], he has received his right, according to one of the two views, because his right is specified therein, so if he took it by force, his right falls away, just as if he destroyed his deposit (wadi'ah). The second view is that his right does not fall away, and he is entitled to the blood-money for his hand, and the blood-money for the perpetrator's hand is upon his 'aqilah.