S E C T I O N .
An half fine
is due for all
the fingers o f
either hand ;
and no more,
although a
part o f the
hand be
ftruck off i
but i f a part
o f the lower
arm be ftruck
off, an arbi-
tratory atonement
is alfo
due.
F or the fingers o f one hand an half of the complete fine is due;
becaufe, as the fine for each finger is a tenth, (as has been before
mentioned,) it follows that for five o f them the fine is five tenths •
and alfo becaufe, as for cutting off all the fingers, one of the faculties
being thereby deftroyed, (namely, that o f carrying,) a complete fine
is due, fo in like manner, half the faculty being deftroyed by cutting
off the fingers of one hand, an half fine is confequently due. If, alfo,
the fingers of one hand be cut off, together with a part of the metacarpus,
ftill an h a lf fine only is due; becaufe the prophet has laid,
“ fo r the two hands a fine is due, and h a l f the fine fo r one hand'"
and alfo, becaufe the metacarpus is merely a dependant of the fingers,
as it is upon the latter folely that the power and faculty of carrying or
taking hold o f any thing depends.
If the hand be ftruck off, together with a part of the lower arm,
an half fine is due for the hand, and an arbitratory atonement for the
part of the arm, according to Haneefa and Mohammedt and alfo according
to one opinion of Aboq Toofaf. There is another opinion recorded
from him, that any thing beyond the hand or foot, to the
Ihoulder or the hip, is merely a dependant; and that nothing whatever
is incurred for the leg or arm; as the l aw has appointed an half
fine for a hand, \Tedfi\ which fignifies the whole limb up to the
Ihoulder, whence nothing more can legally be impofed. T h e arguments
of Haneefa and Mohammed upon this point are twofold.— F irst,
the hand is the inftrument of feizing and carrying; and as thofe acts
depend upon the hand and fingers, not upon the arm, the latter
therefore
therefore is not a dependant of the former with refpedt to compenfa-
tjon,— Secondly, the hand intervenes between the fingers and the
arm— whence the arm cannot be confidered as a dependant of the
fingers;— neither is it a dependant of the hand, as that is itfelf a dependant
of the fingers, and a dependant cannot have a fecondary
dependant.
If a hand be ftruck off having only one finger, a tenth of the fine For a defec-
is due ; or, if it have two fingers, a fifth; and fo forth; and nothing in
whatever is due for the metacarpus in either cafe*; becaufe the fingers proportion to
. . . , . , . , , . its defect.
are the original, and the metacarpus the dependant, not only m reality,
but alfo in the eye of the l aw ;— in reality, as the power of
feizing and carrying depends upon the fingers; and alfo in the eye o f
the l aw , becaufe that has appointed a fine for the fingers, not for the
metacarpal part o f the hand.
F o r a redundant finger (that is, a fix th ) an award o f equity is due, An award o f
out of refpedt to m an ; for that alfo is a part of the perfon, although
it be neither ufeful nor ornamental. The fame rule alfo obtains with dant finger;
refpect to a redundant tooth; and for the fame reafon.
A n award of equity is due for the eye, the yard, or the tongue a,fo for,
x J . . . theeye, yard,
of an infant fo young as that the perfe&nefs of thefe members m. him or tongue o f
cannot be afcertained. Shafc'i maintains that a complete fine is 'due an ln ant'
for thofe, in the fame manner as for the cartilage o f the nofe o f an
infant, or the ear, the perfeftnefs ,of them being the moft probable
conclufion. The argument of our doctors is, that the chief end of
the organs in queftion is the ufe of them; and therefore, where their
ufefulnefs cannot be afcertained, the fine for them is not due, becaufe
of a doubt. Befides, mere probability is not a fufficient ground on
An objection by Mohammed is here omitted, as being utterly frivolous and nugatory.
8 which