Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī (may Allah have mercy on him) held that a sound hand is to be taken in retaliation for a paralysed hand, based on the general purport of the verse: “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.” He also cited the Prophet’s statement to Anas ibn al-Naḍr (may Allah be pleased with him): “The Book of Allah prescribes retaliation” (1). The offender is the one who brought this upon himself; indeed, he has wronged himself, since he committed an act that entails the amputation of his hand. He is therefore the cause of it: “Bāriqash brought destruction upon herself.” Accordingly, a sound hand is taken for a paralysed hand. Just as we execute a sane, young, strong man for a paralysed, elderly, insane man, so too we take this hand for the paralysed hand.

Thus, he has both textual and rational evidence. His textual evidence is the general wording of the texts that establish retaliation: produce for us a text that excludes this case. As for his rational evidence, it is analogy—although Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī did not accept analogy, the majority do—and his analogy is sound.

However, the others say: a paralysed hand is akin to a dead body, for its benefit is entirely absent: it cannot move, nor can it feel a touch or anything at all. It is well known that if a living man were to slaughter a corpse, he would not be executed in retaliation for it. They therefore say that Dāwūd’s analogy is invalidated by this case.

As for his reliance on the general wording of the texts, they replied: it is true that their generality entails taking a sound hand for a paralysed one, since no distinction or qualification is made. Where there is no distinction or qualification, the general wording remains upon its apparent meaning. But the term “retaliation” means that there must be equivalence between the limb taken in retaliation