Continuation of the commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “And the recompense for an evil is an evil like it.” The second evil is called an evil because of its resemblance to the first in form.

This is a short man whose garment was torn by the length of a shibr. This shibr is, for example, one-tenth of his garment. The other man is very tall, and his garment was torn by the length of a shibr. Is the proportion equal? No, it is not equal. So we ask now: is the area considered, or the proportion? Justice dictates that the proportion is what is considered. If half of this short garment, whose area is a dir'a, is torn, and the tall man’s garment is torn by an area of a dir'a, but it is twice as long as the first one, is that sufficient or not? It is not sufficient. We say: tear it until the proportion is reached. If it is one-tenth, then it is one-tenth, because this is true justice. The aggressor ruined one-tenth of the victim’s garment, so let one-tenth of his garment be ruined, even though he is the aggressor. This applies exactly to the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: .
Now, if a man says to another man in anger: “You are a donkey,” should he say to him: “You are the donkey”? He does not say that. How does he not say it? But should he say: “You are a donkey and your father is a donkey”? The answer is: No, that is aggression. But he says: “You are a donkey.”
Now, if he says to him: “May Allah curse you,” should he say: “No, may Allah curse you”? You have the Book of Allah: He has the right to say this. Therefore, if a person curses someone who does not deserve it, where does the curse go? It returns to the first person, and he is punished with what he did.
Listen to the author’s words: “And this is clear in what retaliation is taken for in injuries” This is clear: In what retaliation is taken for in injuries, every limb that stands on its own, and every wound that reaches a bone, this is subject to retaliation. Every limb that stands on its own, such as the eye and the finger and the like, is subject to retaliation. If a man cuts off your index finger, his index finger is cut off, clear? Or a wound that reaches a bone: if his wound is in his head until the bone of his head is exposed, retaliation is taken from him. If his wound is in his leg until the bone is exposed, retaliation is taken until the bone is reached, even if the layer of flesh over the bone in the aggressor is thicker. Retaliation is taken until it reaches the bone. If the wound does not reach the bone, such as if his wound is in his thigh and it is a wound that did not reach the bone, is retaliation taken from him? The jurists say: No, retaliation is not taken from him, and that is because retaliation is not regulated. It is not regulated unless it reaches the bone. But considering the advancement of medicine, we say: if it is possible to take retaliation from him, then retaliation is taken from him.
Now, if he cuts off his hand from the middle of the forearm, is retaliation taken from him or not? The jurists say: No, retaliation is not taken from him because it is not regulated. But if it is from the joint, such as if he cuts off his palm from its joint, retaliation is taken from him. The correct view in the first case, if he cuts off his hand from the middle of the forearm, is that if retaliation is possible, then retaliation is taken from him. In our current era, is it possible or not? It is possible to the hair, or less than the hair. So if it is not possible, and the victim says: “Cut off his hand, and I forgive what was cut from the forearm. Cut off the aggressor’s palm, and I forgive the excess,” the correct view is that retaliation is taken from him, so the aggressor’s palm is cut off. And if the victim drops the excess, it is dropped. Now, if the victim says: “I want you to cut off his palm and I will take the compensation for the excess,” he has that right, because Allah says: And here it says: , and this is clear in what retaliation is taken for in injuries, which is every independent limb or a wound that reaches a bone. The rest is subject to disagreement. Some scholars said: If he says to him, “May Allah humiliate you,” he should reply, “May Allah humiliate you,” based on His saying: Now, if he says: “May Allah curse your father,” what do you say? You say: “May Allah curse your father.” No. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: What does this indicate? ... We say that the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is to clarify the reality, not to clarify the legal ruling. That is, it is customary in the cursing between people that if a man curses the father of a man, he curses his father. This is something you know, and if you do not know it, know it. Go down to the markets and look at the cursing between people. If he curses his father, he curses his father. So the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is a clarification of the reality, and clarifying the reality does not give legal permissibility. The evidence that clarifying the reality does not give legal permissibility is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Do we have the right to drive out the Jews and the Christians? No, but this is to clarify the reality. Similarly, he informed that a woman travels from such a place to such a place alone to clarify the reality, not to clarify the legal ruling. If someone says: What led you to make his saying “he curses the father of the man, so he curses his father, and he curses his mother, so he curses his mother” a clarification of the reality, not a clarification of the legal ruling? I say: What led me to this is that it is not permissible to aggress against anyone who has not committed aggression against you. This is injustice. How can I curse his father? This is injustice, without doubt, and the Shari'ah does not permit injustice. But if someone says: If he curses his parents, the one whose parents were cursed will not be at peace unless he curses the parents of the other, because cursing the parents is a humiliation for the son, and he wants to soothe himself. We say: Praise be to Allah, there is no necessity here. If he curses your parents, curse him, and this is more humiliating.
So the conclusion is that if he curses your father and mother, do not curse his father and mother, because they have no sin. And you have understood the answer regarding the hadith: it is a clarification of the reality, not of the legal ruling. But you may direct the cursing and the curse to the person himself, not to his parents. Yes, that is right.