What is the ruling when one person cuts the uppermost phalanx, and the perpetrator subsequently cuts the middle phalanx, where the uppermost phalanx has no prior claimant?
Chapter on Retaliation (Qawad)
Al-Mughni
Book of Wounds
Primary text
If the perpetrator cuts the middle phalanx instead of the uppermost phalanx (which had no prior claimant), and the perpetrator offers blood money in lieu of retaliation, the claims cancel each other out (taqāṣṣa wa tasāqaṭā) because the blood money for both phalanges is identical. If the perpetrator chooses retaliation, that is permissible, and he must pay the blood money for the uppermost phalanx.
Supporting text
According to the view attributed to Abu Bakr, retaliation is not obligatory because the blood money for both phalanges is identical, and the designation 'phalanx' encompasses both, leading to cancellation, analogous to the rule concerning exchanging one hand for the other.