of the ear. This is the statement of the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Likewise is the statement of the former group if he chooses the blood money. Malik said: There is no penalty (aql) for it if it returns to its place. As for if he cuts a part of his ear and it adheres, he has the recompense (arsh) for the wound, and there is no retaliation in it. If he cuts a person's ear and fulfills retaliation from him, then the perpetrator reattaches his ear and it adheres, and the victim demands its severance, he does not have the right to that; because the severance has already occurred, and the retaliation has been fulfilled, so no right remains for him against the perpetrator. However, if the victim did not cut the entire ear, but only cut a part of it and it adhered, the victim has the right to cut the entire ear; because he was entitled to the severance of the whole, and there had been no severance. The ruling on the tooth is like the ruling on the ear.

Section: Whoever reattaches his ear after it has been severed, or his tooth, is he required to remove it? There are two views regarding this, based on the two reports regarding that which is severed from a human: Is it impure or pure? If we say: It is impure, he is required to remove it, [provided he does not fear harm from removing it, just as if he had set his bone with an impure bone. And if we say it is pure, he is not required to remove it] (11). This is the choice of Abu Bakr, and the statement of Ata ibn Abi Rabah and Ata al-Khurasani, and it is the correct view; because it is a part of a human that is pure in his life and death, so it is pure just as in its state of connection. As for if he cut a part of his ear and it adhered (12), he is not required to remove it; because it is pure according to both reports, as it did not become dead (maytah) due to the lack of its severance. There is no retaliation in it. The Qadi stated this. It is the school of al-Shafi'i; because equivalence is not possible in what is cut of it.

1445 - Issue: He said: (And the nose for the nose).

They reached a consensus on the validity of retaliation for the nose as well, due to the verse and the meaning. The large is taken for the small, the aquiline (1) for the snub-nosed, and the nose of one with a sense of smell for the nose of the one who is anosmic (lacking smell) who cannot smell; because that is due to an ailment in the brain, while the nose itself is healthy. Just as the ear of the one who hears is taken for the ear of the deaf. And if there is