911- Issue: He said: "There is no liability on a cupper, a circumciser, or a physician, if their proficiency in the craft is known and their hands do not commit an injury."

The summation of this is that if these individuals perform what they were commanded to do, they are not liable, provided two conditions are met: First, that they are proficient in their trade and possess insight and knowledge regarding it. This is because if one is not so, it is not permissible for him to initiate cutting; and if he cuts while being in such a state, it constitutes a prohibited act, and thus he is liable for its consequences, just as he would be for the initial incision. Second, that their hands do not commit an injury by exceeding what should properly be cut. If these two conditions are met, they are not liable, because they performed a cut that was permitted, so they are not liable for its consequences, just as in the case of an Imam cutting the hand of a thief, or as if he performed a permissible act that is authorized; this resembles what we have previously mentioned. However, if he is proficient but his hand commits an injury—such as if he exceeds the limit of a circumcision cut to the glans or a portion of it, or cuts in an area other than the location of the cut, or if the physician cuts a "sel'a" (a growth/tumor) from a person and exceeds the necessary area, or cuts with a dull instrument that increases pain, or at a time when cutting is not suitable, and similar cases—he is liable for all of this. This is because it is a form of destruction whose liability does not differ whether it was done intentionally or by mistake, thus it resembles the destruction of property. Furthermore, this is a prohibited act, and he is liable for its consequences, just as if he had initiated the cutting [wrongfully]. The same ruling applies to the farrier (al-nazza') and the cutter in cases of retaliation (qisas), and the one cutting the hand of a thief. This is the school of al-Shafi'i and the People of Reason (Ahl al-Ra'y), and we do not know of any disagreement regarding this.

Section: If he circumcises a boy without the permission of his guardian, or cuts a growth from a person without his permission, or from a boy without his guardian's permission, and his injurious act results in complications, he is liable, because it is a cut that was not authorized. If, however, the ruler or someone who has guardianship over him performs it, or someone authorized by them does so, he is not liable, because it is something permitted in Sharia.

Section: It is permissible to hire someone for circumcision, medical treatment, or the cutting of a growth. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this, and that is because it is a necessary act that is permitted in Sharia, so it is permissible to hire for it, just like other permissible acts.