—if, however, the assailant is himself without fingers and he severs the victim’s whole hand, his own hand is amputated and he must also pay the blood money for the fingers.
Should two of the assailant’s fingers be paralyzed and he cut off an entire sound hand, the claimant may either (i) sever the three healthy fingers and take the blood money for the two paralyzed ones, or (ii) amputate the whole hand and forego any additional claim.

Section
If the corpse is found bandaged and the offender maintains that the victim was already dead, the heir is believed upon taking an oath, according to the sounder view. When a limb has been severed and the offender alleges that it was already defective, his word is accepted only if he denies the limb’s original soundness and the defect is externally visible; otherwise, it is rejected. If he cuts off the hands and feet and the victim then dies, and the offender claims that death resulted from the wound’s later spread (saraya) while the heir contends that healing had still been possible or that some other cause intervened, the correct position is to side with the heir—and the same applies when the assailant attributes the death to another cause and the heir says it was due to saraya. Likewise, if two bone-exposing wounds are inflicted and the assailant removes the tissue barrier between them, claiming to have done so before either wound had healed, he is believed so long as that is plausible; otherwise the injured party must swear an oath, and two arsh payments become due—some jurists adding a third.

Section
The right of retaliation is established for every heir. One must wait for any absentee heir to return and for any minor or insane heir to attain legal competence, and in the meantime the killer is kept in custody without the option of bail. The heirs should agree on a single person to exact the retaliation; failing consensus, lots are drawn, the heir who is unable to carry it out entering the draw and appointing a proxy—though another opinion excludes him altogether. If one heir acts prematurely and kills the offender, the stronger view is that no retaliation is taken against him, and the remaining heirs receive their proportional share of the blood money from the offender’s estate—another opinion making it payable from the estate of the one who acted first. Should an heir kill the offender after another heir has already pardoned him, he becomes liable to retaliation, unless, according to one view, he was unaware of the pardon; a judge rules on the matter.
Retaliation may not be carried out without the ruler’s authorization; if someone proceeds on his own, he is disciplined (taʿzīr). According to the sounder opinion, the ruler may allow the heirs to execute a killer, but not to amputate a limb. If permission is given to strike the neck yet the avenger deliberately targets another part, he is disciplined but not dismissed; if he insists it was a mistake and another executor can be appointed, he is replaced and not punished. As for the executioner’s fee