the minor, and the insane person recovers, they take the oath at that time. The school of al-Shafi'i in this entire section is the same as our school.

Section: For the eye of a one-eyed person, there is a full diya. This was stated by al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Layth, Qatada, and Ishaq. Masruq, Abd Allah ibn Mughaffal, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i said: It carries half the diya, because of his saying, peace be upon him: "For the eye, there are fifty camels," and the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: "For the two eyes, there is the diya." This implies that no more than that should be mandatory for them, whether one person plucks them both, or two people at the same time, or at two different times; and the plucker of the second one is a plucker of the eye of a one-eyed person. If a full diya were mandatory upon him, then a diya and a half would be mandatory for them both, and because that which is guaranteed by half a diya while its counterpart remains, is guaranteed by it even when it is gone, like the ear. The words of al-Khiraqi permit this interpretation because he said: "For a single eye, there is half a diya," and he did not distinguish. Our position is that Umar, Uthman, Ali, and Ibn Umar ruled with the full diya for the eye of a one-eyed person, and we do not know of any companion who opposed them, so it constitutes a consensus. Also, because plucking the eye of a one-eyed person involves the loss of all vision, so the diya is mandatory, just as if he had lost it from both eyes. Evidence for this is that he obtains through it what one obtains through two eyes, for he sees distant things, perceives subtle things, performs the work of those with sight, it is permissible for him to be a judge or a witness, and it suffices in expiation and in the sacrifice, provided the one-eyed animal is not completely blind. Thus, a full diya is mandatory for his vision, as it is for one who has two eyes. If it is said: If this were valid, then it would not be mandatory in