for a need, and the mere act of entering, which is witnessed, does not necessitate his blood being unavenged. If two men wound each other, and each of them claims, "I wounded him in self-defense," each of them shall take an oath to invalidate the other's claim, and each is liable for what he wounded, because each of them is a claimant against the other for something the other denies, and the principle is its non-occurrence.

Section: If a man bites the hand of another, the latter has the right to pull it from his mouth. If he pulls it and the biter's front teeth fall out, there is no liability for them. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Sa'id narrated from Hushaym, from Muhammad ibn Abd Allah, that a man bit another, so he snatched his hand from his mouth, causing some of the biter's teeth to fall out. They brought the dispute to Shurayh, and Shurayh said: "Remove your hand from the mouth of the beast, and ignore his teeth." It is narrated from Malik and Ibn Abi Layla that there is liability, due to the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "For a tooth, there are five camels." Our evidence is what Ya'la ibn Umayya narrated: "I had a hired hand, and he fought with a man; one of them bit the hand of the other. The one who was bitten snatched his hand from the mouth of the biter, and one of his front teeth was extracted. He came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), [who declared his front tooth unavenged, and I believe he said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:] 'Would he leave his hand in your mouth for you to gnaw it as a stallion gnaws?'" This is agreed upon. It is also because this is an organ lost due to the necessity of repelling the harm of its owner, so it is not subject to liability, just as if someone attacked him and he could not repel him except by cutting off his limb. Their report refers to the blood money for a tooth if it is extracted unjustly, and this was not extracted unjustly, and it is the same