What is the ruling if an assailant strikes the victim's eye, causing blindness, leukoma (whiteness), and deviation of the pupil?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If the assailant's eye can be treated so that the blindness, whiteness, and deviation are removed without causing injury to the pupil (al-Hadqah), treatment must be carried out. If only partial restoration is possible, such as restoring sight without removing the whiteness and deviation, then the assailant owes *hukuma* (a discretionary indemnity) for the part where exact retaliation (*qisas*) was impossible. This is analogous to a case where a blow results in a *hashimah* wound (a wound that fractures the bone), where *muda’ihah* (a wound exposing the bone) is retaliated upon, and compensation (*arsh*) is taken for the remainder of the injury.
Supporting text
According to the opinion of Abu Bakr, no indemnity (*arsh*) is due in addition to the retaliation (*qisas*). Furthermore, Al-Qadi stated that if retaliation is enacted (the assailant is struck similarly, resulting in the loss of sight without whiteness or deviation), and the victim's eye can be treated to regain whiteness and deviation without damaging the pupil, this must be done. If this treatment is impossible, nothing is due from the assailant, similar to the case where the victim's *muda’ihah* wound heals with an ugly scar while the assailant's corresponding wound heals well.