a palm, or severed a leg and claimed it did not have a foot. The Qadi said: If they agree that he was sighted, then the statement is that of the victim, otherwise, the statement is that of the perpetrator. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Likewise, according to his analogy, if they differ regarding the paralysis of an organ, because this is something for which it is not impossible to establish evidence, for it is not hidden from his family, his neighbors, and those who deal with him. The manner of bearing witness to it is that he would follow a person with his gaze, avoid what a sighted person avoids, avoid wells and the like on his path, and turn in the curves after whoever he is seeking. Our argument is that the original state is soundness, so the statement is that of the one who claims it, just as if they differed regarding the Islam of the victim and his life. Regarding their saying: "It is not impossible to establish evidence for it," we say: Likewise, it is not impossible to establish evidence for what the perpetrator claims, so obligating it upon him is more appropriate than obligating it upon someone for whom the original state testifies. Furthermore, it is invalidated by the rest of the places they have conceded. If they say here: [It has been established] (76) that the original state is the existence of sight, we say: The apparent state takes the place of the original state, and for this reason, we gave precedence to the statement of the one who claims his freedom and his Islam.

Section: If he increased the retribution (qisas) in terms of the wounds and said: "The increase only occurred due to his struggling" (77), and the victim denies it, there are two views. The first: The statement is that of the one against whom the retribution is being carried out, because the original state is the absence of struggling and the necessity of liability. The second: The statement is that of the one who is carrying out the retribution, because the original state is the freedom of his liability, and what he claims is plausible. The first view is more correct; for the wound is the cause of the necessity of liability, and the struggling which he claims—which prevents the establishment of its ruling—the original state is its absence, so the statement is that of the one who denies it, just as if he wounded a man and claimed that he wounded him in self-defense, or killed him and claimed he found him with his family, or killed an animal and claimed it attacked him.