Is the injured party entitled to *Arsh* (compensation for diminished value) for missing fingers in addition to retaliation (*Qisas*) for other injuries?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
There are two opinions on whether the injured party has the right to *Arsh* for missing fingers when retaliation is exacted for another injury. One opinion states that he does have this right, which is the position of Al-Shafi'i and the chosen view of Ibn Hamid. The justification for allowing this is based on the principle that the injured party is entitled to retaliation at the exact location of the injury, where the instrument was placed by the perpetrator, thus establishing his right to that specific area, similar to cases where the injury inflicted was greater than the *Muwaddiha* (a specific head wound) or where the blow that caused the skull fissure (*ra's ash-shaj*) was smaller, or where a permanently injured limb (*ash-shalaa*) is compensated with a sound limb (*as-sahihah*).
Supporting text
The second opinion holds that he is not entitled to *Arsh* in addition to *Qisas*. This is the established doctrine of Abu Hanifa and aligns with the reasoning of Abu Bakr, to prevent the accumulation of both *Qisas* and *Arsh* for a single limb. Al-Qadi viewed this as implying the forfeiture of *Qisas* entirely, similar to the case where a hand is severed from the middle of the forearm, but this analogy is considered incorrect because, in the case of severed fingers, one can exact *Qisas* at the exact location of the crime, unlike the forearm case where the exact point of injury cannot be targeted.