he shall do so. If it is only possible to achieve some of that, such as the loss of sight without the eye turning white and protruding, then he is liable for the indemnity (hukumah) for that which it was not possible to exact retaliation for, just as if he had inflicted a hashimah (bone-fracturing) wound upon him, he would retaliate for a mudihah (bone-exposing) wound and take the compensation (arsh) for the remainder of his wound. According to the view of Abu Bakr, no compensation is due alongside retaliation. The Qadi said: If one retaliates against him—meaning by slapping him just as he was slapped—and his sight is lost, yet it does not turn white nor protrude, if it is possible to treat it until it turns white and protrudes without the loss of the eyeball, he shall do so; but if that is impossible, there is nothing against him, just as if the mudihah wound of the victim healed in an ugly and disfigured manner, while the mudihah of the perpetrator healed well and beautifully, nothing would be due; it is the same here. He based this on the idea that the slap achieved retaliation, just as it was achieved through the mudihah wound, and we have already explained the invalidity of this.

Section: If he strikes him with a wound less than a mudihah, and causes his eyesight to be lost, he shall not retaliate with a similar wound, by consensus (bighayri khilafin) as far as we know, because there is no retaliation for it if the eyesight is not lost, so it is the same if it is lost. The eyesight is to be treated in the manner we mentioned regarding the slap. If the wound is above a mudihah, he may retaliate with a mudihah. Is he entitled to compensation for the excess? There are two views on this. And if the eyesight is lost, otherwise he shall employ what removes it without injuring the eyeball. If he inflicts a mudihah wound, he may retaliate with it. The ruling on retaliation for eyesight is as we mentioned before. The scholars of the Shafi'i school differed regarding retaliation for eyesight in all these instances. Some of them said: There is no retaliation for it, because it is not mandatory by way of extension (sirayah), just as if he cut off his finger, and the cut extended to the one next to it, causing its loss according to them. Others said: Retaliation is mandatory here, in one view, because the eyesight cannot be directly harmed by the crime, so retaliation is exacted through the extension (sirayah), like the life, so one retaliates for the eyesight through what we mentioned prior to this.