the liability of the diya or retaliation remains fixed upon the first perpetrator because he caused the loss of vision and it did not return, while against the second there is a hukuma (judicial discretion) because he damaged an eye that had no light, though its return was hoped for (4). If the first party claims that its light returned and the second denies it, the word is that of the denier, because the basic assumption (al-asl) is in his favor; if the victim confirms the claim of the first party, his right against him is dropped, but his word is not accepted against the second. If the experts state that its return is hoped for but they do not know a specific duration for it, the diya or retaliation is mandatory because waiting for it indefinitely leads to the dropping of the consequence of the crime, and the apparent state of the eye is that it does not return, and the basic assumption supports this. If it returns before the obligation is fulfilled, it drops; if it returns after the fulfillment, the amount taken must be returned because it became clear that it was not mandatory.

Section: If one commits a crime against him and the light of his eyes diminishes, a hukuma is due for that. If he claims a decrease in the light of both, his word is accepted along with his oath, because this is known only from his side. If he mentions that one of them has diminished, the diseased eye is covered, the healthy one is left open, and a person is positioned for him and moves away (5) from him. Whenever he says, "I see him," and describes his color, his truthfulness is known, until he reaches the end. When his vision terminates (6), its location is known. Then, the healthy one is tied, the diseased one is left open, a person is positioned for him, and he goes until his vision terminates. Then, the person is moved to another side, and the same is done. Then, it is marked (7) at both distances, they are measured, and they are compared. If (8) they are equal, then he was truthful, and one considers how much is between (9) the distance of the vision of the diseased eye and the healthy eye, and he is awarded a portion of the diya according to the difference between them. If the two distances differ, he has lied, and it is known that he shortened the distance of the vision of the diseased eye so that his entitlement would be greater, so it is repeated until the distance is equal between both sides. The basis for this is what was narrated