or the index finger, or the middle finger; because the utility of the hand is lost with the loss of these. It does not suffice to free one who has a severed little finger and ring finger on one hand; because most of the hand's utility is lost by that. If each one is severed from a different hand, it is permissible; because the utility of the two palms remains. Severing the phalanx of the thumb is like severing the entire thumb; for its utility is lost by that, as it consists of two phalanges. If it is from other than the thumb, it does not prevent sufficiency; because its utility is not lost; for it becomes like the short fingers, to the extent that even if all his fingers other than the thumb had one phalanx severed from each of them, it would not prevent it. If two phalanges of a finger are severed, it is like severing the whole finger; because its utility is lost. This is entirely the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It suffices to free one who has one of his hands or one of his feet severed, and if his hand and foot were both severed from opposite sides, it suffices; because the utility of the species remains, so it suffices in expiation, like the one-eyed person. As for if they were severed from the same side, it does not suffice; because the utility of the thing is lost. We argue that this affects the work and causes significant harm, so it must prevent its sufficiency, just as if they were severed from the same side. This differs from being one-eyed, for that does not cause significant harm. Consideration of harm is more appropriate than consideration of the utility of the species; for if his sense of smell were gone, or both his ears were severed, it would suffice despite the loss of the utility of the species. A lame person does not suffice if the lameness is severe and excessive; because it harms the work, so he is like one who has a foot severed. If the lameness is minor, it does not prevent sufficiency; because the harm is small.

Section: The one-eyed person suffices according to all of them. Abu Bakr said: There is another opinion, that he does not suffice; because it is a deficiency that prevents the validity of sacrifice (udhiyya) and sufficiency in the sacrificial animal (hady), so he resembles the blind person. The correct view is what we have mentioned, for the objective is the completion of the rulings and for the slave to possess the benefits, and being one-eyed does not prevent that, and because it does not harm the work, so he resembles one whose one ear has been severed. This differs from blindness, for that harms the work in a clear and significant manner, prevents many crafts, and results in the loss of the utility of the species. It also differs from the severing of one hand or one foot, for one cannot do with one of them what one does with both, whereas a one-eyed person perceives with one eye what he perceives with both. As for the sacrifice and the sacrificial animal, mere being one-eyed does not prevent them; rather, what prevents them is the sinking of the eye and the loss of a prized limb. Also, in the case of sacrifice, the cutting of the ear and the horn prevents it, whereas in manumission, nothing prevents it except what harms the work. One whose ears are severed suffices. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i held this view. Malik and Zufar said: It does not suffice; because they are two limbs for which blood money (diya) is due, so they resemble the hands. We argue that severing them does not harm the work in a clear and significant way, so it does not prevent it, like a deficiency in hearing, unlike the severing of the hands. One whose nose is severed suffices likewise. A deaf person suffices if he understands by gesture. A mute person suffices if his gesture is understood and he understands by gesture. This is the position of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. The People of Opinion said: He does not suffice; because the utility of the species is lost, so he resembles one who has lost his mind. This is what was explicitly narrated from Ahmad; because muteness is a major deficiency that prevents many rulings, such as judicial testimony and legal evidence, and most people do not understand his gestures, so there is harm in failing to employ him. If both muteness and deafness are combined, the Qadi said: It does not suffice. This is the opinion of some of the Shafi'is, due to the combination of the two deficiencies in him and the loss of the two utilities of the species. The justification for sufficiency is that the gesture takes the place of speech in conveying meaning, and most rulings are established in his regard, so he suffices in manumission, like one whose sense of smell is gone. As for one whose sense of smell is gone, he suffices; because it does not harm the work or anything else. As for the sick person, if there is hope for his recovery, like with a fever and the like, it suffices in expiation. If there is no hope for its disappearance, like tuberculosis and similar, it does not suffice; because its disappearance...