as if he had severed his hand from the middle of the forearm. The second [narration] is that retaliation is mandatory for the limb; if he dies because of it, [he dies], otherwise his neck is struck. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, for what we mentioned (19) at the beginning of the issue. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that there is only one narration stating that one may not retaliate against him for the limb, and that it is not valid to derive it (20) based on the two narrations regarding the issue, because this leads to an excess, unlike the [former] issue. The correct view is to derive it based on the two narrations, and this is not an excess; because the loss of life is due to the spreading of his act, and the spreading of his act is like his act, so it is similar to if he had severed it and then killed him. Furthermore, the excess of the act in appearance is permissible during the exaction of retaliation, as if he killed him with one blow; it would be impossible to kill him in the exaction of retaliation except with two blows.

Section: If he wounds him with a wound for which there is no retaliation, and the loss of life is not necessitated by it, such as if he stabs him in the body cavity (ja'afahu), strikes him on the head (ammahu), or severs his hand from the middle of the forearm, or his leg from the middle of the shin, and he dies from it, or if he severs a hand that is missing fingers, or paralyzed, or extra, while the hand of the severer is original and sound, the correct view in the school is that he is not permitted to perform [the like of what he did] (21), and he is not permitted to retaliate except on the neck with a sword. This was mentioned by Abu Bakr and the Qadi. Others said: There is another narration that he (22) is permitted (23) to retaliate by the like of (24) his act, because it has become a killing, so he is entitled to retaliation by the like of his act, just as if he had crushed (25) his head with a stone and killed him with it. The correct view is the first one; because if this were isolated, there would be no retaliation in it, so retaliation is not permissible in it together with the killing, just as if he were to sever his right hand and the severer had no right hand, he would not be permitted to exact [retaliation] from his left [hand]. It differs from the case where he crushed his head (26) and he died; because that act is an isolated killing, whereas here, it is a killing and a severing, and the severing does not necessitate retaliation, so it remains a mere killing. Thus, if the one exacting [retaliation] combines both of them,