the one-eyed man’s eye. The one-eyed man’s eye is more valuable, for it is superior to the other: in addition to being an eye, it preserves his entire faculty of sight. Thus, equivalence—which is a condition for establishing retaliation—cannot be realized.

Others said that there is no retaliation, but that he owes half the blood-money. They considered the eye of the victim, saying: The victim has lost only half his sight, so he is entitled to half the blood-money. Thus, there are three views:

The first: retaliation.

The second: no retaliation, but a full blood-money is due.

The third: no retaliation, but half the blood-money is due, in consideration of the victim’s condition: he has lost only half his sight, so how can we require a full blood-money from the offender?!

The proof of the authoritative position is that it is narrated from Umar and Uthman (1), and no one is known to have opposed them. Moreover, we waived retaliation from him for his own benefit and left him with a complete faculty; therefore, he owes a full blood-money.

Issue: If a person with two sound eyes gouges out the sound eye of a one-eyed man, he owes a full blood-money. If he did so deliberately, retaliation is due. But must the offender, in addition to retaliation, pay half the blood-money? The authoritative position is that he must, because he has deprived him of an entire faculty—namely, sight.

The second view is that he is not required to pay half the blood-money, because it is an eye for an eye, as Allah Most High says; and the fact that the person with two sound eyes still retains a second eye is not