for the penalty for theft takes precedence.
And if someone who is liable to have retaliation carried out against him for a limb—be it a hand, a leg, an eye, or any other member—should lose that very limb through a cause attributable solely to Allah the Exalted, the retaliation is cancelled and no blood-money is due.
If, in a case of deliberate assault, the aggressor has already had the like wound exacted from him, nothing further is required of him and the victim has no additional claim—except that, when a one-eyed man puts out the eye of a person with two sound eyes, and the latter is willing to accept the indemnity, the offender is compelled to pay it according to the Medinan report from Mālik; another report from him says he is not compelled.

Any intentional wound for which neither a fixed diya nor a like retaliation exists entails a painful disciplinary punishment for the offender. If a man wounds another and the victim dies of that wound, and the heirs refuse to accept the diya, the aggressor is subjected to retaliation for the deliberate wounding and is additionally liable for the diya of accidental killing.

The procedure for retaliation is to measure the area of the wound, or the portion of a finger that was severed, and to inflict upon the offender exactly the same measure. Thus, if a man cuts off the first phalanx of a person whose finger is unusually long, that phalanx is measured; if it constitutes one-third of the finger, then one-third of the offender’s finger is amputated—and so on in every case. In all head wounds, both depth and breadth are assessed, and the same applies to lacerations of the skin and to fractures of those bones for which retaliation is allowed, namely all the bones of the body except the femur and what resembles it. Every injury for which retaliation is taken must be executed by the hand of a skilled physician, and his fee is borne by the party in whose favour the retaliation is carried out.

According to Mālik, there is neither retaliation nor diya for plucking a man’s eyebrows or beard; the penalty is only a painful disciplinary measure. The same ruling applies to a slap or a jab, and he allows no retaliation for them. Another report from him states that in the case of removing hair from the eyebrows, head, or beard an assessed compensation is due, and that a blow with a whip entails retaliation, as does a slap provided it is not on the eye. It is likewise narrated from him—regarding a man who beats another until the victim loses control of his bodily functions—that the aggressor is liable to a chastisement that causes him pain.