the injured party is an equivalent to the perpetrator, such that he would be subject to retaliation if he had killed him. Third, that the limb is equal to the limb; thus, a sound limb is not taken for a paralyzed one, nor a hand with complete fingers for one with missing fingers, nor an original [finger] for an extra one. Equality in thinness, thickness, smallness, largeness, health, and illness is not a condition, because regarding that would lead to the total dropping of retaliation. Fourth, correspondence in specific designation; thus, a right hand is not taken for a left, nor a left for a right, nor a finger for one that is different from it, nor an eyelid or lip except for its like. Fifth, the possibility of execution without injustice (hayf), which is that the cutting be from a joint. If it is not from a joint, there is no retaliation for it from the location of the cut, without any disagreement that we are aware of. It was narrated by Nimran ibn Jariyah, from his father, that a man struck a man on his forearm with a sword and cut both of them, not at the joint. He sought retribution from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who ordered the blood money (diyah) for him. He said: "I want retaliation." He replied: "Take the blood money, and may Allah bless you in it." He did not rule in his favor with retaliation. Narrated by Ibn Majah.

Section: There are eight issues regarding the cutting of the hand. First, cutting the fingers from their joints: retaliation is mandatory because they have joints, and retaliation is possible without injustice. If he chooses the blood money, he receives half of it, because each finger carries one-tenth of the blood money. Second, cutting it from the middle of the palm: he has no right to retaliation from the location of the cut because it is not a joint, and thus injustice cannot be guarded against. If he wishes to cut the fingers, there are two opinions regarding this. One is that he may not do so. This is the choice of Abu Bakr because he would be retaliating from a location other than the site of the crime, so it is not permitted, just as if the cutting were from the wrist (ku'). The reasoning for this is that the prevention of cutting the fingers when he has cut from the wrist is only due to the lack of grounds or the presence of an impediment, and whichever it may be, it is confirmed when the cutting is from the middle of the palm. The second is that he may cut the fingers. This was mentioned by our companions and is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he is taking less than his right due to his inability to