If blood money is deemed obligatory for the severed hand, should the amount be the full Diyya of the severed limb or the lesser of the Diyya of the limb or the Diyya of the life?

Primary text

Two positions exist on determining the amount. The first position mandates the Diyya of the specific severed limb. Thus, if both hands and both feet were cut off before apostasy and subsequent death, two instances of Diyya are due. This is because apostasy cuts off the effect of progression, similar to when the wound heals or another person kills the victim. The second position mandates the lesser of the two amounts (Diyya of the limb or Diyya of the life). This is because if the victim had not apostatized, the maximum due would not exceed the Diyya of the life, making that the limit here. Furthermore, the cutting became a killing, which limits the obligation to the Diyya of the life, unlike the first scenario where the cutting did not culminate in death.