a nose infection (leprosy), a healthy nose is taken for it, as long as nothing has fallen from it; for that is an ailment. If something has fallen from it, he shall not cut the healthy nose for it, unless it is from one of its two sides. He shall take from the healthy nose an amount equivalent to what remained of it, or he shall take the recompense (arsh) for that. What is subject to retaliation or blood money is the soft part (al-marin), which is the part that is soft, excluding the bridge of the nose (qasabat al-anf); for that is a boundary at which it terminates, similar to the hand, where retaliation is obligatory for what terminates at the wrist. If he cuts the entire nose along with the bridge, he is liable for retaliation regarding the soft part, and a governmental assessment (hukuma) for the bridge. This is the statement of Ibn Hamid and the school of al-Shafi'i. There is another view, which is that no governmental assessment is required alongside retaliation, so that retaliation and blood money do not combine in a single limb. The analogy of Abu Bakr's statement is that retaliation is not required here; because he would be placing the iron instrument in a location other than the one where the perpetrator placed it, and he does not have the right to do that, similar to his statement regarding one who cuts a hand from the middle of the forearm or the palm. The Qadi mentioned here something like the statement of Abu Bakr, and in its counterparts, something like the statement of Ibn Hamid, and the distinction is not valid when there is equality. If he cuts a part of the nose, it is estimated by parts, and an amount equal to that is taken from him, as we stated regarding the ear; it is not taken by measurement, lest it lead to cutting the entire nose of the perpetrator due to its smallness for a part of the nose of the victim due to its largeness. The right nostril is taken for the right, and the left for the left; the right is not taken for the left, nor the left for the right. The septum is taken for the septum; because retaliation is possible in it, due to it terminating at a limit.

1446 - Issue: He said: (And the member for the member).

We know of no disagreement among the scholars that retaliation applies to the male member (dakar); because of the words of the Almighty: {And [for] wounds is legal retribution} (1). And because it has a boundary at which it terminates, and retaliation is possible in it without injustice, so retaliation is mandatory in it, like the nose. This applies equally to the member of a young boy or an old man, a youth or an elder, and the healthy or the sick; because that for which retaliation is mandatory among the extremities does not differ based on these meanings, and the same applies to the member. Each one of the circumcised and the uncircumcised is taken for the other; for the foreskin is an excess whose removal is justified, so it is as if it were non-existent. As for the member of a castrated person (khasi) and an impotent man (innin), al-Sharif mentioned that others are not taken for them. This is the statement of Malik; because there is no benefit in them, for the impotent man does not have intercourse nor does he emit, and the castrated man does not father children nor does he emit, and he is hardly capable of intercourse, so they are like a paralyzed limb. And because each of them is deficient, a complete one is not taken for them, like a deficient hand for a complete one. Abu al-Khattab said: Others are taken for them, in one of the two views. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because they are two healthy limbs that contract and expand, so others are taken for them, like the member of a fertile man who is not impotent. The absence of emission is due to the loss of the testicle, and the impotence (unna) is due to an ailment in the back, so that does not prevent retaliation through them, like the ear of the deaf and the nose of the anosmic. The Qadi said: The member of a fertile man is not taken for a castrated man; due to the confirmation of his deficiency, and the despair of his recovery. Regarding taking it for the member of an impotent man, there are two views; one of them is that another is taken for it; because he is not beyond hope of his impotence ceasing, and for that reason, he is deferred for a year, unlike the castrated man. The correct view is the first; [for if] (5) the situation wavers between it being equal to the other or not, retaliation is not mandatory, because the basic principle is its absence, so it is not mandatory due to doubt, especially since we have ruled on the absence of equality, due to the existence of evidence regarding his impotence and the proof of his defect. Each of the castrated and the impotent is taken for his like; due to their equality, just as a slave is taken for a slave, and a dhimmi for a dhimmi.

Section: Some of it is taken for some of it, and that is considered by parts rather than measurement, so it is taken