What is the ruling when a one-eyed man (A'war) removes the eye of a sound-eyed man?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If a one-eyed man removes the eye of a sound-eyed man, retaliation (Qisas) is not permissible against the one-eyed man. Instead, the one-eyed man must pay the full blood-money (Diyah). This is the established opinion of Umar and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them, supported by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and 'Ata. The primary evidence rests upon the established practice and rulings of Companions like Umar and Uthman, as no dissenter was known during their time. Furthermore, since the one-eyed man did not remove the entirety of the victim's sight, retaliation using the entirety of his own sight is not permitted, unlike the case of a man with two eyes.
Supporting text
Other opinions state that the victim has the choice to enact retaliation or accept half the Diyah, as held by Al-Hasan and An-Nakha'i. Malik stated that the victim may choose retaliation or accept the full Diyah. A third position, held by Masruq, Ash-Sha'bi, Ibn Sirin, Ibn Mughaffal, Ath-Thawri, Ash-Shafi'i, the Ahl al-Ra'y (School of Opinion), and Ibn al-Mundhir, is that the victim has the right to Qisas, and the one-eyed assailant pays nothing. This latter group bases their view on the verse, 'And the eye for an eye' (Quran 5:45), and the Prophet's practice of establishing Diyah for eyes, equating it to cutting off a hand when the other party has two hands.