retaliation is due for the cut [part] only, and the blood-money (arsh) is due for the paralyzed [part]. This is the view of Malik and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: There is no retaliation for either of them, and the blood-money for both is due; because the ruling of the progression (sirayah) cannot be separated from the injury, as evidenced by the case where it progresses to the soul. Thus, if retaliation is not due for one of them, it is not due for the other. For us, the evidence is that it is an injury that would necessitate retaliation if it did not progress, so it necessitates it when it does progress, just as in the case that progresses to the loss of another [limb], or as if he cut the hand of a pregnant woman and it progressed to her fetus. By this, what he mentioned is invalidated. It differs from the principle, because the progression necessitates retaliation just as the act necessitates it, so their ruling is equivalent; whereas here it is the opposite. Moreover, what he mentioned is incorrect; for if the cut progresses to the soul, retaliation for the cut drops and is due for the soul, so the ruling of the injury differs from the ruling of the progression, and thus what he said falls away. Once this is established, the blood-money is due from his wealth, and the agnates ('aqilah) do not bear it because it is an act of intentional injury. Retaliation was not due for it only because of the lack of parity in the cutting and the paralysis. So if he cut his finger and his remaining fingers and palm became paralyzed, and he pardoned the retaliation, half of the blood-money is due to him. And if he took retaliation for the finger, he is entitled to forty camels for the remaining fingers, and what parallels them from the palm follows them, which is four-fifths of it, so its blood-money is included therein. As for the remaining fifth of the palm, there are two views: One is that it follows them in the blood-money, so there is nothing [extra] for it. The second is that a government (hukumah) is due for it; because what corresponds to the four [fingers] followed them in the blood-money due to their equivalence in the ruling, but the ruling of the one for which retaliation was taken differs from the ruling of the blood-money, so it did not follow it.

Section: Retaliation is not permitted for a limb until the wound has healed, according to the view of the majority of scholars, among whom are: al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. This has also been narrated from 'Ata' and al-Hasan. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Everyone from the scholars whom we preserve [views from]