If it does not heal, and he dies from that, the perpetrator is a partner in his own [the victim's] demise. It is possible that retaliation is incumbent upon him, and it is possible that it is not incumbent under any circumstances; because the victim's action was intended for the sake of benefit, thus it is 'intentional error' (amd al-khata'), and a partner in an erroneous act is not subject to retaliation; rather, he owes half the blood money (diya). If the victim cuts off the area of the gangrene, you must consider: if he cut off dead flesh, then the injury spreads, the retaliation is upon the perpetrator, because it is the progression (siraya) of his injury specifically. If it was into living flesh and he died, the ruling regarding it is the same as if he had cut it off fearing its progression.

Section: If he cuts a fingertip (unmula) that has two parts, one of which is extra and the other original, if the fingertip of the one cutting also has two parts, he is taken in retribution for it. If it does not have two parts, it is cut, and he is liable for compensation (hukuma) for the extra part. If the cut part had only one part and the fingertip of the one cutting had two parts, he is taken in retribution for it according to the opinion of Ibn Hamid. According to others, there is no retaliation for it, and he is entitled to the blood money for his fingertip. If the extra part is removed, he has the right to demand retaliation. If he says: 'I will wait until the extra part is removed and then I will retaliate,' he may do so, because the retaliation is his right, so he cannot be forced to expedite its fulfillment.

Section: If he cuts the upper fingertip of a man, then cuts the middle fingertip of another, then cuts the lower one from a third, the first has the right to retaliate against the upper one, then the second has the right to retaliate against the middle one, then the third has the right to retaliate against the lower one, whether they come all at once or one after another. Al-Shafi'i stated this. Abu Hanifa said: There is no retaliation except for the upper one, because it was not incumbent upon the others at the time of the injury, due to the impossibility of its fulfillment, so it did not become incumbent after that, just as if it were not equivalent at the time of the injury and then became equivalent afterward. We argue that the impossibility of retaliation due to the connection of its location to another does not prevent it once the connection is removed, just as if a pregnant woman commits an offense. It differs from the lack of equivalence, because that was impossible for a reason inherent to it, whereas here it was impossible due to the connection of another to it. However, if the owner of the middle or lower one comes to demand retaliation before the owner of the upper one, he is not granted it; because in its fulfillment there would be the destruction of a fingertip he is not entitled to. They are both told: