Is retribution (Qisas) due for the removal of a tooth in a person who has not yet shed their primary teeth (i.e., has not 'Athghar')?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
Retribution is not exacted immediately for the removal of a tooth from one who has not yet shed their primary teeth. This is the view held by Malik, Shafi'i, and the proponents of the rationalist school (Ashab al-Ra'y). The rationale is that such teeth typically regrow by custom, similar to hair, so immediate retribution is inapplicable. If the replacement tooth grows back exactly as the original, the perpetrator owes nothing further, just as if a hair were plucked and regrew. If the replacement tooth grows back crookedly or altered in form, a *hukuma* (governor's discretion/assessment of compensation) is due because the defect represents a loss compared to the full tooth. If the tooth does not return after the expected period for regrowth, the injured party has the choice between Qisas or the *diyah* (blood money) for the tooth, following consultation with medical experts confirming the hopelessness of regrowth.
Supporting text
If the injured party dies before the time for the tooth's regrowth has passed, Qisas is not due because the entitlement to it is not fully established, creating a doubt that warrants its waiver; however, Diyah is due because the removal has occurred and regrowth is uncertain. Another possibility is that if death occurs before the expected regrowth time, nothing is due, akin to shaving hair and the person dying before it grows back.