What is the legal ruling regarding the full compensation (diyah) when an intentional injury turns a tooth completely black?
Chapter on Diyat (Blood Money) for Wounds
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
The full *diyah* (blood money) for the tooth is obligatory. This view is narrated from Ahmad, as one of the two narrations attributed to him, and is the apparent position of Al-Kharaqi. This opinion is supported by Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Shurayh, Al-Zuhri, 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Al-Nakha'i, Malik, Al-Layth, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Abi Salamah, Al-Thawri, and the Ashab al-Ra'y (the Companions of Abu Hanifa). It is also one of the two sayings of Al-Shafi'i. The evidence supporting this is that Zayd ibn Thabit held this view, and no opposing view from the Companions of the Prophet is known, thus indicating consensus (*ijma'*). Furthermore, because the aesthetic perfection (*jamal*) was completely removed, the full *diyah* is due, analogous to severing the ear of a deaf person or the nose of one whose nose has already been cut off.
Supporting text
One narration from Ahmad states that if the utility of the tooth (such as chewing) is entirely lost, the full *diyah* is due. If the utility remains, then a discretionary assessment (*hukumat*) is due. This is the position of Al-Qadi and the second opinion of Al-Shafi'i, which is the preferred view among his followers because the tooth's utility was not entirely destroyed, meaning its full *diyah* is not due, similar to the case where a tooth merely turns yellow.