proportionally, not by absolute measure. For the offender’s tooth may be twice the size of the victim’s tooth. Thus, if he breaks half of the victim’s tooth, and we say that retaliation is determined by measure, we would take one quarter of the offender’s tooth. But if we say it is determined proportionally, we would take half of the offender’s tooth.
In summary, retaliation for wounds is carried out only in three cases:
First: every wound that reaches the bone.
Second: a tooth.
Third: wounds for which retaliation is carried out along with financial compensation for the excess injury. This is mentioned in the author’s statement: “unless the injury is more serious than a mudihah wound—such as a hashimah, a munqilah, or a mamumah wound. In that case, he may exact retaliation equivalent to a mudihah wound, and he is entitled to financial compensation for the additional injury.” This is the view adopted by the author.
The correct view, however, is that retaliation may be exacted for every wound, based on the generality of Allah’s statement: “And for wounds is legal retribution.” Thus, whenever retaliation for a wound can be carried out, it must be carried out. Accordingly, if medical specialists say, “We can now exact retaliation from him centimetre by centimetre without injustice,” then retaliation is carried out against him. So, if one man cuts open another man’s abdomen, retaliation is not carried out against him according to the madhhab; but the correct view is that retaliation is carried out.
“If a group cuts off a limb, or inflicts a wound requiring retaliation, then retaliation is due from all of them, …”
His statement: “If a group cuts off a limb, or inflicts a wound requiring retaliation, then retaliation is due from all of them”: a limb means an organ. Thus, if they cut off a limb—for example, by taking a knife and all pressing upon it until the limb is severed—they have participated in the act, and retaliation is exacted from all of them, due to the generality of Allah’s statement: “A life for a life”