Section: If the hands of both the perpetrator and the victim are complete, [and] there is an extra finger on the victim’s hand, then according to the opinion of Ibn Hamid, the extra finger is of no consequence, for it is in the position of a growth or a tumor. According to others, he has the right to cut off the perpetrator’s hand. Is he entitled to compensation (hukuma) for the extra finger? There are two views. If one who has five original fingers cuts the finger of one who has four original fingers and one extra finger, or if one who has four original fingers and one extra finger cuts the finger of one who has five original fingers, there is no retaliation in the first case because an original finger is not taken in exchange for an extra one. In the second case, there is retaliation according to the opinion of Ibn Hamid, because the extra finger is of no consequence. Others said: If the extra finger is not in the location of an original one, there is also no retaliation, because the two fingers are different. If it is in the location of an original one, the Qadi said: Retaliation applies. This is the school of al-Shafi‘i, and he receives nothing for the loss of the extra one. This view is subject to scrutiny; for whenever it is in the location of an original one, it is an original one, because an extra one is that which exceeds the number of fingers or is located outside the finger region. Since this [person] has five fingers in their proper locations, they are all original. If they say: The meaning of it being extra is that it is weak and leans away from the alignment of the fingers, we say: Its weakness does not necessitate it being extra, similar to the penis of an impotent man (al-‘innin). As for its leaning away from the alignment of the fingers, if it is not growing in the location of a missing finger, their statement that it is in its location is incorrect. If it is growing in its place, but its tip has leaned or become crooked, this is an ailment that does not remove it from being an original [finger].

Section: If he cuts his finger, and it becomes gangrenous, affecting his hand, and it falls off at the joint, there is retaliation for it. If its owner preempts it and cuts it off at the wrist so that it does not spread to the rest of his body, and then the wound heals, the perpetrator is liable for retaliation for the finger and compensation for what became gangrenous of the palm, but he is not liable for anything regarding what the victim cut off, because it perished due to his own action. If it does not