speech. The second [position] is that he is liable for half the diya and a hukūma for the paralyzed fourth; because if all of it were paralyzed, there would be a hukūma or a third of the diya, so if some of it is paralyzed, there is a hukūma for that part as well. The third [position] is that he is liable for three-quarters of the diya. This is the second position for the companions of al-Shāfiʿī, because he cut three-quarters of his tongue, and a fourth and half of his speech were lost, so three-quarters of the diya became due upon him, just as if he had cut it from the beginning. The assertion that 'some of it is paralyzed' is invalid, because whenever a limb has some benefit, it is not considered partially paralyzed, just like an eye if its sight is weak, or a hand if its grasp is deficient. If he cut half of his tongue and a fourth of his speech was lost, he is liable for half of its diya; if another cuts the remainder of it, he is liable for three-quarters of the diya. This is one of the two positions of the companions of al-Shāfiʿī. The other is that he is liable for half the diya, because he only cut half of his tongue. Our argument is that he destroyed three-quarters of the speech, so he is obligated to pay three-quarters of its diya, just as if three-quarters of the speech had been destroyed by the cutting of the first half of the tongue. Also, if he destroyed three-quarters of the speech while the tongue remained, he would be liable for three-quarters of the diya, so it is even more appropriate that it be due upon cutting half of the tongue. And if the second [offender] had not cut half the tongue, but committed an offense against him that destroyed the remainder of his speech while the tongue remained, he would have been liable for three-quarters of the diya, because he destroyed three-quarters of that which is guaranteed by the diya; thus, he is liable for three-quarters of the diya, just as if he committed an offense against a healthy person and destroyed three-quarters of his speech while the tongue remained.

Section: If he cuts part of his tongue intentionally, and the victim takes retaliation (qiṣāṣ) for the like of what was committed against him, and there is lost from the offender's speech the equivalent of what was lost from the victim's speech or more, he has fulfilled his right, and there is nothing [due] for the excess; because it is from the sarāya (consequences) of the qiṣāṣ, and the sarāya of the qiṣāṣ is not guaranteed.