Thus, it is mandatory to take each one of them in exchange for the other, just as a healthy one is taken for a healthy one, unlike the hand and foot. There are two opinions attributed to al-Shafi‘i, corresponding to the two views [mentioned].

Section: A hand with a complete set of fingers cannot be taken in exchange for one with missing fingers. If someone who has five fingers cuts the hand of someone who has four or three, or if someone who has four fingers cuts the hand of someone who has three, retaliation is not mandatory because it would exceed his right. Does he have the right to cut from the fingers of the perpetrator equal to the number of his own fingers? There are two views regarding this, which we have already mentioned in the case where one cuts [the hand] from the middle of the palm. If the owner of a complete hand cuts a hand that has a paralyzed finger while the rest are healthy, it is not permissible to take the healthy one in exchange for it, because that would be taking a complete limb for a deficient one. Regarding the application of retaliation on the healthy fingers, there are two views; if we say that he may exact retaliation, then he is entitled to financial compensation (hukuma) for the paralyzed one and the indemnity (arsh) for what is beneath it from the palm. Whether what is beneath the healthy fingers is included in the retaliation for them, or if financial compensation is mandatory for it, is a matter of two views.

Section: If the owner of a complete hand cuts a hand that has an extra finger, retaliation is mandatory. Abu ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamid mentioned this, because an extra finger is a defect and a deficiency in essence, for which a sold item may be returned, so its presence does not prevent retaliation for it, like a growth or an ulcer on it. Al-Qadi chose the view that it is not to be cut in exchange for it, which is the school of al-Shafi‘i, because it is an addition. According to this view, if the victim also has an extra finger in the same position as that of the perpetrator, retaliation is mandatory due to their equivalence. If it is in a different position, or if the victim does not have an extra finger, the perpetrator’s hand is not taken. Does he have the power to cut the finger? We shall examine: if the extra finger is attached to one of the fingers, he does not have the right to cut that finger because in cutting it there is harm to the extra finger. Does he have the right to cut the four fingers? There are two views. If it is not attached to any of them, does he have the right to cut all five? There are two views. If the extra finger is fixed to a finger on its upper phalanx, it is not permissible to cut it. If it is grown on the lower or middle phalanx, he has the right to cut what is above it from the phalanges, according to one of the two views, and he takes the indemnity for the phalanx which it was not possible to cut, according to one of the two views, and this follows the [pro rata] fifth of the palm.