Is retaliation (*Qisas*) applicable for severing a paralyzed ear or nose?

Primary text

There are two established legal positions regarding whether retaliation applies when severing a paralyzed ear (*udhun shalaa*) or a paralyzed nose (*anfan ashall*). One view holds that retaliation (*qisas*) is not taken, equating it to the ruling for other defective limbs. The opposing view asserts that retaliation must be taken. This is because the function of the paralyzed organ remains. The function of the ear is to gather sound, repel pests, and cover the hearing area, while the function of the nose is to gather air, repel air or pests. Therefore, the paralyzed organ is considered equal to the sound one in both utility and function, necessitating that one be taken for the other, similar to how a sound organ is taken for a sound organ. This contrasts with the hand or foot.