from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him. Ibn al-Mundhir said: The best that has been said regarding this is what Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said. He ordered his eye to be covered, and he gave a person a shell (bayda), and he walked away with it while he was looking, until his vision ended. Then he ordered that a line be drawn at that point. Then he ordered his other eye to be covered, the healthy one was opened, and he gave a person a shell, and he walked away with it while he was looking until his vision ended. Then he drew a line at that point. Then he moved to another place and did the same, and they found them to be equal. So he awarded him according to what had diminished of his vision from the wealth of the other person. Al-Qadi said: If experts in medicine claim that his vision decreases when the distance is far and increases when it is near, and this is possible through measurement, it is acted upon. The explanation is that if they say that if a man is looking at one hundred cubits, then wants to look at two hundred cubits, he needs for the second hundred double the vision he needs for the first hundred. Based on this, if he sees with the healthy eye up to two hundred, and sees with the diseased one up to one hundred, we know that two-thirds of the vision of his eye has diminished, so he is entitled to two-thirds of its diya. This is hardly ever precise in most cases, and everything that is not precise has a hukuma. If he commits a crime against his eyes and they protrude, become cross-eyed, or become bleary-eyed, a hukuma is due for that, just as if he struck his hand and it became crooked. Crime against a minor or a mentally incapacitated person is like a crime against an adult and a sane person. They only differ in that the adult is a claimant on his own behalf, while the claimant for the minor and the insane person is their guardian. If an oath is required from them, they do not take the oath, nor does the guardian take the oath on their behalf, but if the minor reaches puberty, or the insane person recovers, they take the oath at that time. The school of al-Shafi'i in this entire section is the same as our school.

Section: For the eye of a one-eyed person, there is a full diya. This was stated by al-Zuhri, Malik, al-Layth, Qatada, and Ishaq. Masruq, Abd Allah ibn Mughaffal, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i said: It carries half the diya, because of his saying, peace be upon him: "For the eye, there are fifty camels," and the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: "For the two eyes, there is the diya," implying that no more than that should be mandatory for them, whether one person plucks them both, or two people at the same time, or at two different times; and the plucker of the second one is a plucker of the eye of a one-eyed person. If a full diya were mandatory upon him, then a diya and a half would be mandatory for them both, and because that which is guaranteed by half a diya while its counterpart remains, is guaranteed by it even when it is gone, like the ear. The words of al-Khiraqi permit this interpretation because he said: "For a single eye, there is half a diya," and did not distinguish. Our position is that Umar, Uthman, Ali, and Ibn Umar ruled with the full diya for the eye of a one-eyed person, and we do not know of any companion who opposed them, so it constitutes a consensus. Also, because plucking the eye of a one-eyed person involves the loss of all vision, so the diya is mandatory, just as if he had lost it from both eyes. Evidence for this is that he obtains through it what one obtains through two eyes, for he sees distant things, perceives subtle things, performs the work of those with sight, it is permissible for him to be a judge or a witness, and it suffices in expiation and in the sacrifice, provided the one-eyed animal is not completely blind. Thus, a full diya is mandatory for his vision, as it is for one who has two eyes. If it is said: If this were valid, then it would not be mandatory in...