– namely, the hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ enabled the injured party to demand retaliation.

Imam Ahmad, in the view most commonly ascribed to him, ruled that it is forbidden to inflict retaliation on a limb before it has healed. This is also the position of the majority of scholars, among them the leading jurists Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Thawri, and Ishaq. Ibn al-Mundhir said, “This is the opinion of everyone from the people of knowledge whose view we have preserved.”

5 – If the injured person waits until the wound has healed and then the injury spreads, the ruling is as follows: when the original wound is of a kind for which neither retaliation nor the subsequent spread (sarayah) carries a penalty of retaliation, the perpetrator is liable for the full blood money or the assessed compensation (arsh) by unanimous agreement. If the initial wound is one for which retaliation is prescribed, Malik and al-Shafi‘i maintain that retaliation applies only to the original injury, not to what it later spreads to. Imam Ahmad, however, holds that retaliation is due both for the initial wound and for whatever develops from it. Nayl al-Ma’arib states: “The consequences of an injury are guaranteed, whether they involve life or something less. If a man severs a finger and another finger later deteriorates, or the whole hand decays and falls from the joint, or the victim dies, the offender is liable for all of that, either by retaliation or by blood money.”

6 – The report also proves that when a ruling harms no one but the person who seeks it, and he insists upon receiving that ruling after being informed of its consequences, he is granted his request.

7 – It shows that following the sacred law brings goodness and blessing both immediately and in the long run, whereas contravening it yields evil in the present and the future.

8 – Clarifying the error of someone who rushes matters is not considered gloating, provided it is said for the sake of reflection and admonition for him and for others.