They must either wait until they know what happens with the first; if he retaliates, then you two have the right to retaliate, and if he forgives, then you have no retaliation, or they may both agree to the blood money. If the owner of the upper one comes and retaliates, then the second has the right to retaliate, and the ruling for the third with the second is like the ruling for the second with the first. If he forgives, they are entitled to the blood money. If they say: 'We will wait and pause the retaliation until the upper one is lost due to illness or similar, and then we will retaliate,' they are prevented from doing so. If the owner of the middle one cuts the middle and the upper, he owes the blood money for the upper, to be paid to the owner of the upper. If he cuts the entire finger, he is subject to retaliation for the third fingertip, and he owes the compensation (arsh) for the upper one to the first, and the compensation for the lower one is upon the perpetrator to the owner of it. If the perpetrator forgives the retaliation for it, its compensation becomes incumbent, which he pays to him so that he may pay it to the victim.

Section: If he cuts the upper fingertip of a man, then cuts the two fingertips of another, the upper and the middle, of that same finger, the first has the right to cut the upper one because his right is prior, then the second cuts the middle one and takes the compensation for the upper one from him. If the second acts prematurely and cuts both fingertips, he has fulfilled his right, and the fulfillment of retaliation becomes impossible for the first, who then has the right to compensation from the perpetrator. If he had cut the two fingertips first, we would have prioritized their owner in the retaliation, [and the compensation for the upper fingertip would be incumbent for its owner]. If their owner acts prematurely and cuts it, he has fulfilled his right, and the middle one is cut for the first, and he takes the compensation for the upper one. If he cuts the upper fingertip of a man, and the cutter does not have an upper one, and the perpetrator satisfies himself from the middle one, then if he forgives in exchange for the blood money, they settle the accounts between them and both are dropped; because their blood money is the same. If the perpetrator chooses retaliation, he may do so, and he pays the compensation for the upper one. According to the opinion of Abu Bakr, it comes to pass that retaliation is not incumbent, because their blood money is equal, and the name of the fingertip encompasses both, so they are both dropped, as per his opinion regarding one of the two hands as a replacement for the other.