For us, the evidence is that 'Umar and 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with them, said: "Whoever dies due to a legal punishment (hadd) or retaliation (qisas), there is no blood-money for him; the right killed him." Sa'id narrated it with this meaning. Furthermore, it is a deserved and determined cutting, so its progression is not guaranteed, like the cutting of a thief. It differs from what they analogized it to, because what he [the perpetrator] did was not deserved. Once this is established, there is no difference between its progression to the soul—such that he dies from it—or to something less than that, such as if he cuts a finger and it progresses to his palm.

Section: The progression of an injury is guaranteed without disagreement, because it is the effect of the injury, and the injury is guaranteed, so its effect is likewise. If it progresses to the soul, or to something that cannot be directly executed by destruction—such as if he crushes his skull, causing the loss of his eyesight—then retaliation is due for it. There is no disagreement regarding this in the case of the soul, and regarding eyesight, there is a disagreement we mentioned previously. If it progresses to something that can be directly executed by destruction, such as if he cuts a finger, and another [finger] rots away and falls off from a joint, there is retaliation for it as well, according to the view of our Imam, Abu Hanifah, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Most jurists said: There is no retaliation for the second one, but its blood-money is due; because what can be directly inflicted by injury, retaliation is not due for it by way of progression, just as if he shot an arrow and it passed from him to another. For us, what is due for retaliation by injury is due by way of progression, such as the soul and eyesight; and because it is one of the two types of retaliation, so it resembles what we mentioned. It differs from what they mentioned, as that is an act and not a progression. Also, if he intended to strike a man and hit another, retaliation is not due; whereas if he intended to cut his thumb and cut his index finger, retaliation is due. If he struck his thumb and it passed through to his index finger, retaliation is due for both, so they are distinct. Furthermore, the second one was destroyed by an act that necessitates retaliation, so retaliation is due for it, just as if he shot one of them and it passed through to the other. As for if he cuts a finger, and another one adjacent to it becomes paralyzed, it is due