Section: If the wound is above the 'mudihah' (bone-exposing wound) and [the injured party] wishes to exact retaliation for a 'mudihah', that is permitted (13) without disagreement among our scholars. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he is limiting himself to a part of his right, and he is retaliating from the location of the offense; for he is placing the knife in the same spot the perpetrator placed his, since the perpetrator's knife reached the bone and then went beyond it, unlike the one who cuts the forearm, for he did not place his knife in the 'ku' (wrist bone). Is he entitled to the 'arsh' (blood money compensation) for the portion beyond the 'mudihah'? There are two views regarding this. One of them is that he is not entitled to it; this is the preference of Abu Bakr, because it is a single wound, so retaliation and blood money should not be combined for it, just as if he were to cut off a paralyzed limb in exchange for a healthy one, and as in cases of homicide when a disbeliever is killed for a believer, or a slave for a free person. The second is that he is entitled to the 'arsh' for the portion exceeding the 'mudihah'; this was chosen by Ibn Hamid and is the school of al-Shafi'i, because retaliation became impossible for that part, so it shifted to the substitute, just as if he were to cut off two of his fingers and it was only possible to fulfill retaliation from one, differing from the paralyzed limb in exchange for a healthy one, because the excess there is a matter of meaning and is not distinct, unlike in our issue.

1444 - Issue; he said: (The ear shall be cut off for the ear.)

The scholars unanimously agreed that the ear is taken for the ear, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: {And the ear for the ear} (1). And because it terminates at a definitive boundary, so it resembles the hand. The large ear is taken for the small one, and the ear of the person with hearing is taken for the ear of the person with hearing [and the ear of the deaf person] (2), and the ear of a deaf person is taken for either of them, due to their equality, for the loss of hearing is a deficiency in the head, as it is its location, and not a deficiency in the ears themselves. A healthy ear is taken for a pierced one, because piercing is not a defect; rather, it is customarily done for an earring and for adornment. If the hole is not in its proper place, or if the ear is mutilated, it is taken