Section: If a one-eyed person gouges out the eye of a person with two healthy eyes, there is no retaliation (qawad), and he is liable for the full blood money (diyah). This is narrated from Umar and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Ata also held this view. Al-Hasan and al-Nakha'i said: If he wishes, he may retaliate and give him half the blood money. Malik said: If he wishes, he may retaliate, and if he wishes, he may take the full blood money. Masruq, al-Sha'bi, Ibn Sirin, Ibn Ma'qil, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, the scholars of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He is entitled to retaliation, and nothing is due from him. If he grants a pardon, he is entitled to half the blood money, based on the saying of Allah the Almighty: {And the eye for the eye}. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) established the blood money for two eyes. Also, because it is one of two things for which blood money is due, retaliation is mandatory against someone who has only one, or half the blood money, just as if an amputee cut off the hand of someone who has two hands. Our evidence is the statement of Umar and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them, [and we do not know of any opponent to them] in their era, and because he did not remove all of his sight, so it is not permissible for him to retaliate against him with all of his sight, just as if he were a person with two eyes. As for cutting off the hand of an amputee, we have a prohibition against that, and even if we were to concede it, the difference between them is that the hand of the amputee does not perform the role of two hands in the benefit derived from them, unlike the eye of the one-eyed person, for the benefit derived from two eyes is present in it; every ruling that relates to a person with healthy eyes is established in the one-eyed person, and that is why his manumission in the expiation is valid, unlike the amputee. As for the obligation of the full blood money upon him, which is the view of Malik, it is because since retaliation was averted from him despite its possibility due to his [the victim's] superiority, the blood money was doubled upon him, like a Muslim who intentionally kills a dhimmi. If a one-eyed person gouges out one of the eyes of a healthy person by mistake, he is not liable for anything but half the blood money, without disagreement, due to the absence of the meaning necessitating the doubling of the blood money.