from which retaliation is taken and the limb for which it is taken; otherwise, retaliation is not realised. This is the view of the majority, though the issue requires further investigation, for Dāwūd’s evidence is very strong.

His statement: “Nor may a complete hand be taken for one with missing fingers.” Thus, if the offender has a complete set of fingers while the victim has only four fingers, we do not take the offender’s hand for the victim’s hand, because the victim’s hand is deficient in fingers, and so full equivalence in retaliation is not achieved.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this applies whether the deficiency is congenital—meaning that Allah created him with only four fingers—or an acquired deficiency, such as when one of his fingers has been cut off.

This issue is weaker than the preceding one, because the fingers of a deficient hand retain benefit, such as movement and sensation. It is like the case where someone kills a man whose four limbs have been severed—that is, both his hands and feet have been cut off: the offender is executed, even if he has all his limbs intact. This case is similar. Thus, the view that a hand with complete fingers may be taken for one with missing fingers is stronger than the first view, because paralysis eliminates all benefit entirely, whereas this is merely a deficiency.

His statement: “Nor may a sound eye be taken for a sightless eye that remains intact in appearance.” Such an eye is one that remains in its original condition and appearance, so that whoever sees it assumes that it can see, while in fact it cannot. A sound eye is one that can see. Therefore, if the offender’s eye is sound and the victim’s eye is sightless though intact in appearance, there is no retaliation, because such an eye has no benefit. Someone might say: perhaps this ruling differs in the present age, since an eye that remains intact in appearance can undergo surgery, have a cornea implanted, and become sound. But if the defect is in the optic nerves—