What is the ruling on extracting a tooth from a child whose permanent teeth have not yet erupted (Lam Yathghur)?
Chapter on Diyat (Blood Money) for Wounds
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
If a tooth is extracted from a child whose permanent teeth have not yet erupted, no immediate compensation is due. This is the position of Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and the Companions of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). This is because the custom is that the tooth will regrow, making the extraction similar to plucking hair. Compensation is due only if a period passes during which regrowth is despaired of. Ahmad mandates waiting one year, as this is the usual time for regrowth. Al-Qadi stated that if the adjacent teeth fall out and this one does not grow back, the diya is due. If a replacement grows, no diya is due, unless the new tooth grows in short or misshapen, in which case 'hukuma' is due due to the defect resulting from the injury. If it grows back larger, 'hukuma' is due as it constitutes a defect.
Supporting text
An alternative view suggests nothing is due if the new tooth grows back larger, considering it an excess. The sound opinion holds that a defect resulting from the injury necessitates compensation, similar to reduction in quality. If the new tooth grows crooked but remains useful, 'hukuma' is due for the blemish and the reduction in utility. If it grows discolored (yellow, red, or changed), 'hukuma' is due for the loss of beauty. For black or green discoloration, there are two narrations: one stating full diya and another stating 'hukuma,' similar to artificially blackening a tooth.