What is the ruling when one person cuts a finger from a man's hand and another person's hand, and the cutting of the finger occurred first?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If the cutting of a finger preceded the cutting of the hand, the hand is severed as retribution (qisas). The owner of the finger is entitled to the *arsh* (compensation) for the finger. This differs from the case where a person is killed and then a hand is cut, where the cutting is exacted despite being later, because cutting a hand does not prevent equivalence (*takafu*) in the case of life, as demonstrated by accepting a complete limb for an incomplete one, and their blood money being equal. Conversely, the loss of a finger prevents equivalence in the hand, because a complete hand is not taken for an incomplete one, and their blood money differs. If the owner of the hand pardons, the finger is severed for its owner if he chooses severance.
Supporting text
The ruling when the finger was cut first is that the finger is severed as retribution, and the owner of the hand has the choice between pardoning for blood money (*diyah*) or demanding retribution while taking the blood money for the finger. This is the opinion cited by Al-Qadi, the preference of Ibn Hamid, and the madhhab of Al-Shafi'i. The justification is that since he found part of his right, he can exact what is present and take compensation for what is missing, analogous to someone destroying a fungible item and only finding part of its equivalent. Abu Bakr suggested that the claimant should choose between retribution with nothing else, or the full blood money, which aligns with the madhhab of Abu Hanifa, as retribution and blood money cannot be combined for a single limb, similar to the case of a life.