Whose testimony prevails when an assailant severs a limb and claims a pre-existing disability, such as blindness from an eye injury or a missing hand or foot?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
If an assailant severs a limb and claims a pre-existing condition, such as claiming that a severed forearm had no hand or a severed leg had no foot, or claims blindness after removing an eye, the statement of the injured party (the victim) prevails because the fundamental principle is soundness and physical integrity.
Supporting text
Al-Qadi holds that if both parties agree the person was sighted, the statement of the victim prevails, otherwise the assailant's statement prevails. This aligns with the second position of Al-Shafi'i. This reasoning applies similarly to disputes over limb paralysis. However, the prevailing view asserts that the principle of soundness prevails, making the statement of the one claiming soundness authoritative, akin to disputes over the life or Muslim status of the deceased.