as a benefit, so it is similar to if he committed a crime against him by cutting off a growth that he removed from him.

Section: If he has two palms on one forearm, or two hands on one upper arm, and one of them is functional while the other is not, or one is more functional than the other, or one is aligned with the forearm while the other is crooked, or one is complete while the other is incomplete, then the first is the primary one and the other is supernumerary. Thus, for the primary one, its blood money is due, as well as retaliation (qisas) for cutting it intentionally, whereas for the other, which is supernumerary, a discretionary penalty (hukuma) is due, whether he cuts it separately or cuts it along with the primary one. According to the view of Ibn Hamid, there is nothing due for it because it is a defect, and therefore it is like a growth on the hand. If they are equal in all respects: if both are non-functional, then one-third of the blood money of a hand or a discretionary penalty is due for both, and the full blood money of a hand is not due because he derives no benefit from them; they are like a paralyzed hand. If both are functional, then the blood money of a hand is due for them both. Is a discretionary penalty due along with that? There are two views based on whether or not a discretionary penalty is due for the supernumerary one. If he cuts one of them, there is no retaliation (qawad) because it is possible that it is the supernumerary one, so the primary one is not cut for it; for it, half of what is due for both is owed if they are cut, due to their equality. If he cuts a finger from one of them, the indemnity for half a finger is due, and regarding the discretionary penalty, there are two views. If the owner of the hand that has two extremities has one hand cut separately, retaliation is due for both according to the view of Ibn Hamid, because this is an impairment that does not prevent retaliation, like a growth on the hand. According to the view of others, it is not due, lest he take two hands for one hand, and one of them is not cut because we do not know which is the primary one to take it, nor do we take a supernumerary one for a primary one. As for if he has two feet on one leg, the ruling is according to what we mentioned regarding the two hands. If one of the two feet is longer than the other, and the long one is