the lower or middle one, he has the right to cut what is above it from the phalanges, according to one of the two views. He takes the indemnity (arsh) for the phalanx which it was not possible to cut, according to one of the two views, and this follows the [pro rata] fifth of the palm.

Section: If the owner of a hand that has nails cuts the hand of one who has no nails, retaliation is not permissible, because a complete [limb] cannot be taken in exchange for a deficient one. If the amputated [hand] was one with nails, but they were green or withered, we may take a healthy one in exchange for it, because that is an ailment and a disease, and disease does not prevent retaliation, as evidenced by the fact that we take a healthy limb in exchange for a diseased one.

1453 - Issue: He said: "If the perpetrator is paralyzed (ashall) and the amputated limb is healthy, then if the oppressed person wishes to take it, he may do so, and he has nothing else. And if he wishes, he may pardon [the perpetrator] and take the blood money (diya) for his hand."

As for when he chooses the blood money, he is entitled to the blood money for his hand; we do not know of any disagreement regarding this, because he is unable to fulfill his right completely through retaliation, so he is entitled to the blood money, just as if the perpetrator did not have a hand. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi‘i. If he chooses retaliation, the experts are to be consulted. If they say: "If it is cut, the veins will not close, and air will enter the body and corrupt it," retaliation is dropped, because it is not permissible to take a life for a limb. If this is safe, then he is entitled to retaliation, because he has consented to less than his right, and he is permitted to do so, just as if a Muslim consents to retaliation from a dhimmi, a man from a woman, or a free person from a slave. He is not entitled to any indemnity along with retaliation, because the paralyzed limb is like the healthy one in formation, and it only lacks quality, so he is not entitled to indemnity, like the scenarios we have mentioned. Abu al-Khattab said: "In my view, he is entitled to an indemnity along with the retaliation," by analogy to his opinion regarding the eye of the one-eyed person. The first view is more correct; for linking this subsidiary issue (far‘) to the agreed-upon foundations (usul) is more appropriate than linking it to a disputed subsidiary issue that falls outside the foundations and contradicts analogy.

Section: A paralyzed hand may be taken in exchange for a paralyzed one, provided there is safety from excess in exacting it. The companions of al-Shafi‘i said it is not taken in exchange for it, according to one of the two views, because paralysis is an ailment, and the effects of ailments vary in the body, so equivalence cannot be established between them. Our view is that they are equivalent in the essence of the limb and its quality, so it is permissible to take one in exchange for the other, just as a healthy one is taken for a healthy one.