Section: If a Kitabi (a person of the Book) cuts the hand of a Muslim, and it heals, and he retaliated, then the Muslim's wound reopened and he died, then his heir has the right to kill the Kitabi or pardon him in exchange for the compensation (arsh) of the wound. Regarding its amount, there are two views: One of them is half of the blood money (diyah), because he has already satisfied the equivalent of his hand through retaliation, and the equivalent of his hand is half of his blood money, so half of it remains for him, just as if the perpetrator were a Muslim. The second [view] is that he has three-quarters of it, because the hand of a Jew is worth half of his blood money, which is one-quarter of a Muslim's blood money, so he has satisfied one-quarter of his blood money and three-quarters of it remains for him. If he cut the two hands of the Muslim, and he retaliated, then the Muslim died, and his heir pardoned [the retribution] in exchange for wealth, it is built upon the two views: If we say that the value of the Jew is considered, then he has here half of the blood money. If we say that the consideration is based on the value of the Muslim's hand, then he has nothing here, because he has already satisfied the equivalent of his two hands, and they are his entire blood money. If the cutting was on his two hands and his two feet, and he pardoned in exchange for blood money, he would have nothing, by one view, because the blood money for that is the blood money of a Muslim. If the perpetrator was a woman against a man, the ruling is the same as what we have mentioned, because her blood money is half of a man's blood money.

Section: If one cuts a man's hand from the wrist (al-ku'), then another cuts it from the elbow (al-mirfaq), and he died from their progression, his heir has the right to kill both cutters, and he does not have the right to cut their two extremities, according to one of the two views. According to the other, he has the right to cut the hand of the [first] cutter from the wrist. If he cuts it, then pardons him, he has half of the blood money. As for the other, if his hand was cut from the wrist, and he cut it from the elbow, then he pardoned, he has [the full] blood money, except for the amount of the government (hukumah - discretionary compensation) for the forearm. If the hand of the cutter from the elbow were sound, it is not permissible to cut it, in one narrated view, because he would be taking a sound [hand] for a cut one. If he cuts their hands, and they are both sound, or two men cut his hands, and he cuts their hands, then the crime progressed, and he died from their cutting, his heir does not have the right to pardon in exchange for blood money, because he has already satisfied what is valued at blood money. If he chooses to kill them, he may do so.