has not reached the stage of 'thughr', its extraction necessitates nothing immediately. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y). I know of no disagreement regarding this; this is because it is the habit for the tooth to return, so nothing is immediately mandatory for it, similar to the plucking of one's hair. Rather, one must wait for its return. If a period passes during which there is despair of its return, its blood money becomes mandatory. Ahmad said: One waits for a year, for that is the most frequent period for its growth. Al-Qadi said: If its peers have fallen out and it has not returned, the blood money is taken. If another grows in its place, its blood money is not mandatory, just as if one's hair were plucked and its likeness returned. However, if it returns short or deformed, there is a discretionary penalty (hukumah) for it, because the apparent reality is that this was due to the injury inflicted upon it. If it is possible to estimate its deficiency compared to its peer, it has a share of its blood money proportional to what was lost. Likewise, if there is a notch in it and it is possible to estimate it, it has a share proportional to what was lost of it, just as if one broke that amount from his tooth. If it grows longer than its peers, there is a discretionary penalty for it, because that is a defect. Another view was stated regarding it, that there is nothing for it because this is an excess. The correct view is the first one, because this is a blemish that resulted from the injury, so it resembles its deficiency. If it grows tilted from the row of teeth such that one cannot benefit from it, its blood money is due, because that is like its loss. If one can still benefit from it, there is a discretionary penalty for it due to the blemish caused by it and the reduction in its utility. If it grows yellow, red, or discolored, there is a discretionary penalty for it due to the reduction of its beauty. If it grows black or green, there are two reports, narrated by al-Qadi; one of them is that its blood money is due, and the second is that there is a discretionary penalty, just as if one were to blacken it without extracting it. If the child dies before there is despair of the tooth's return, there are two views: one of them is that there is nothing for it, because the apparent reality is that if he had lived, it would have returned, so nothing is mandatory for it, just as if his hair were plucked. The second is that the blood money is due, because he extracted a tooth and there was despair of its return, so its blood money became mandatory, just as if...