As for us, our position is that he has done to him the like of his act and has not exceeded it, just as if he inflicted a wound upon him or severed a limb, and the guardian then exacted the like from him and he did not die from it; he does not repeat the wounding on him by consensus, but rather shifts to striking his neck, and thus it is the same here.

Section: If he kills him with something that is intrinsically impermissible, such as if he sodomized him and killed him, or forced him to drink wine, or performed sorcery upon him, he is not to be killed with the like of that by consensus, and the matter shifts to killing with the sword. The scholars of the Shafi'i school have narrated, regarding one who kills by sodomy or by forcing the drinking of wine, another viewpoint: that he inserts a piece of wood into his anus with which he kills him, or forces him to drink water until he dies. Our position is that this is intrinsically forbidden, so it is necessary to shift from it to killing with the sword, just as if he killed him with sorcery. If he burns him, some of our scholars said: He shall not be burned; because burning is forbidden (33) by the right of Allah, the Almighty, based on the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "None punishes with fire except the Lord of the Fire" (34), and because it falls under the generality of the report. This is the school of Abu Hanifa. The Qadi said: The correct view is that there are two narrations regarding it, like the case of drowning; one of them is that he shall be burned. This is the school of Shafi'i, based on what al-Bara' ibn 'Azib reported that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Whoever burns, we shall burn him, and whoever drowns, we shall drown him." They interpreted the first hadith as referring to cases other than retaliation for the one who was burned.

Section: If the one exacting retaliation for a life exceeds his right—such as if his guardian is killed, and the one exacting retaliation severs his limbs or some of them—we look into this: If he pardons him after severing his limb, he is liable for the compensation (diya) of what he destroyed. This is the position of Abu Hanifa. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad said: There is no liability upon him, but he has done wrong and shall be disciplined (ta'zir), whether he pardons the killer or kills him; because he severed a limb from a whole that he was entitled to destroy, so he is not liable, just as if he severed a finger from a hand that he is entitled to sever. Our position is that he severed a limb that had value at the time of the severing without a right, so he is liable for it, just as if...