its blood money is due. If it returns to what it was, there is nothing due for it, just as if he injured his hand and it became diseased then healed. If a looseness remains in it, a discretionary penalty (hukumah) is due. If someone extracts it, he owes its full blood money, as we mentioned in the chapter [before this one], and the first [perpetrator] owes a discretionary penalty for his injury. If the period passes and it does not return to what it was, there is a discretionary penalty for it. If someone extracts it, he owes its blood money, as we mentioned. If they say: its return is hoped for without a set period, a discretionary penalty is due for it, so as not to lead to the nullification of the injury. If it returns, the discretionary penalty is dropped, as we mentioned regarding others.

Section: If someone extracts a tooth, and its owner returns it [to its place], and it grows in its place, its blood money is not due. Ahmad stipulated this in the narration of Ja'far ibn Muhammad. This is the opinion of Abu Bakr. According to the opinion of the Qadi, its blood money is due. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and we have already mentioned their reasoning regarding when one’s nose is cut, then he puts it back and it heals. According to the opinion of Abu Bakr, a discretionary penalty is due for it due to its deficiency if it is deficient, or its weakness if it is weakened. If someone extracts it after that, its blood money is due, because it is a tooth that possesses beauty and utility, so its blood money is due, just as if it had not been extracted. According to the opinion of the Qadi, its ruling is based on the necessity of extracting it. If we say: its extraction is mandatory, then there is nothing due from the one who extracted it, because he did well by extracting what was mandatory to extract. If we say: its extraction is not mandatory, it is possible that its blood money be taken, for the reasons we mentioned, and it is possible that its blood money is not taken, because he has already been owed its blood money once, so it is not due a second time, but a discretionary penalty is due for it. As for if he placed another tooth, or an animal tooth, or a bone in its place, and it grew, its blood money is due, in one view, because his tooth is gone entirely, so its blood money is due, just as if he had not placed anything in its place. If this second [tooth] is extracted, its blood money is not due, because it is not his tooth, nor is it from his body, but there is due for it