What is the ruling when an initial cutting injury causes paralysis in an adjacent finger?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If a finger is cut off and an adjacent finger becomes paralyzed, Qisas is due only for the amputated finger, and the blood-money equivalent for the paralyzed finger (Arsh) is due. This is the position held by Malik and Al-Shafi'i. The rationale is that a consequence leading to an injury that, if inflicted directly, would warrant Qisas, necessitates Qisas when it arises through consequence, similar to when a cut results in the falling off of another limb, or when cutting a pregnant woman's hand results in the loss of the fetus. The consequential harm here necessitates Qisas because the original act, had it not spread, would have necessitated Qisas.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that there is no Qisas for either injury, and the Arsh for both must be paid. His argument is that the ruling of consequential harm cannot be separated from the initial assault, evidenced by the case where the harm reaches the life, in which case Qisas transfers to the life injury. Therefore, if Qisas is not due for one, it is not due for the other.