Is the hand, leg, or tongue of a healthy person to be severed in retaliation for a corresponding disabled limb (ashal)?

Primary text

There is no known ruling among the scholars mandating the cutting of a healthy hand, leg, or tongue for a corresponding afflicted limb (*ashal*), except what is narrated from Dawud, who mandated it because each is named by its owner's designation, thus it should be taken in kind like the ears. The proof against this is that the afflicted limb possesses no benefit other than appearance, and thus what possesses benefit (the healthy limb) should not be taken for it, just as a sound leg is not taken for an immobilized one (*qa'imah*). Furthermore, the analogy presented for this view is one that he (Dawud) does not accept in other contexts. If retaliation is not established for the eyes despite the saying of God, 'An eye for an eye' (Quran 5:45), due to the difference between them in soundness and blindness, then it is more appropriate that this is not mandated where there is no explicit text.