Is retaliation by striking permissible if striking caused loss of sight in an eye?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
Retaliation by striking is not permissible if striking caused the loss of sight in an eye because exact equivalent retaliation (Muthala) is not possible in that action. If the loss of sight resulted from a blow that did not involve direct physical removal of the eyeball, then retribution (Qisas) is due for the loss of sight. This is established by the action related to the case involving the Muwali of Uthman ibn Affan, where Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) used a heated mirror placed near the eye, or camphor, to cause the loss of sight in the uninjured eye to match the injury, provided this does not involve damaging the pupil directly.
Supporting text
The view of the Qadi is that retaliation by striking is permissible, where the injured party strikes the offender similarly, and if sight is lost, then Qisas is established; otherwise, the injured party may cause the loss of sight using means like the heated mirror. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i. This opinion is considered incorrect because striking is not subject to retaliation on its own, so it is not subject to retaliation when it causes loss of sight, similar to a superficial head wound (sharjah) that is less than a Mawdihah (a wound exposing bone). Furthermore, if a blow not aimed at the eye does not typically lead to the loss of sight, then retaliation is not due if sight is lost, classifying it as an offense akin to manslaughter without premeditation (shibh 'amd). Another view held by Abu Bakr dictates that retaliation is due under all circumstances due to the generality of the verse: {And the eye for an eye} (Quran 5:45), asserting that a strike leading to the loss of sight is equivalent to a wound, and in wounds, necessity of leading to destruction is not considered.