Yahya said that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that retaliation is taken from someone who breaks someone's hand or foot intentionally and not blood-money."

Malik said, "Retaliation is not inflicted on anyone until the wound of the injured party has healed. Then retaliation is inflicted on him. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted is like the first person's wound when it heals, it is retaliation. If the wound of the one on whom the retaliation has been inflicted becomes worse or he dies, there is nothing held against the one who has taken retaliation. If the wound of the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted heals and the injured party is paralysed or his injury has healed but he has a scar, defect, or blemish, the person on whom the retaliation has been inflicted does not have his hand broken again and further retaliation is not taken for his injury."

He said, "But there is blood-money from him according to what he has impaired or maimed of the hand of the injured party. The bodily injury is also like that."

Malik said, "When a man intentionally goes to his wife and gouges out her eye or breaks her hand or cuts off her finger or such like, and does it intentionally, retaliation is inflicted on him. As for a man who strikes his wife with a rope or a whip and hits what he did not mean to hit or does what he did not intend to do, he pays blood-money for what he has struck according to this principle, and retaliation is not inflicted on him."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Abu Bakr ibn Muhammd ibn Amr ibn Hazm took retaliation for the breaking of a leg.