Is indemnity due for severing the tongue of an infant who has not yet spoken due to infancy?

Primary text

Indemnity is obligatory for severing the tongue of an infant who has not spoken due to infancy. This is the position held by Al-Shafi'i. The justification is that the outward appearance suggests soundness, and the lack of speech is due only to the inability to articulate yet. Therefore, indemnity is due just as it is for an adult. This case differs from that of a mute person (akhras) because it is known that the mute person's limb is paralyzed, evidenced by the lack of dexterity in their limbs for which indemnity is also due.