Commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: ((And the recompense for an evil is an evil like it)) The second was called an evil because of its resemblance to the first in form

The Shaykh :"

And the recompense for an evil is an evil like it

وجزاء سيئةسيئة مثلها

The second was called an evil because of its resemblance to the first in form, and this is apparent in what is retaliated against in terms of injuries. Some said: If he says to him, 'May Allah disgrace you,' he should reply, 'May Allah disgrace you.'" His statement: This is, in reality, a principle that a person may retaliate against an evil done to him with its like, without exceeding it, because if he exceeds it, he has wronged. The excess may be in quantity, in quality, or in type. If he takes revenge for himself by striking the one who wronged him three times, while the one who wronged him struck him twice, that is in terms of quantity. If he strikes the one who struck him with a light blow with a heavy blow, that is in terms of quality. If he strikes the one who attacked him with a weak whip with a larger whip, that is in terms of type. The important thing is that the retaliation must be with the like of the evil he was subjected to, without exceeding it. If he exceeds it, he is a wrongdoer. For this reason, it is said: "This for this, and the one who starts is more wrong."
Now, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The second was called an evil because of its resemblance to the first in form" There is a clear consideration here. The retaliation is an evil, but it is not an evil with respect to the doer; rather, it is an evil with respect to the one from whom retaliation is taken. It is unpleasant to him, it pains him, and it breaks his pride if he considers himself superior to his counterpart. So it is an evil not by virtue of the doer, but by virtue of the one from whom retaliation is taken. As for his statement that it resembles the first, it is not possible to call something an evil for absolute resemblance or mere resemblance. Now, this is, in reality, a principle in all retaliation. Let us look: if you tear your garment, do you tear his? The apparent meaning of the verse is yes. But if your garment is poor and worth ten, and his is good and worth one hundred, do you tear his or not? Now, if you tear it and it decreases by a tenth of its value, what is that? It decreases by a tenth. For example, this garment is worth ten riyals; the aggressor tore it with a tear that lowers its value by a tenth. A tenth of ten is one. His garment is worth one hundred, so if you tear it with a tear worth a tenth, how much does it decrease? Ten. Now you have taken ten in exchange for one. Do we say that the criterion is the meaning, because when he tore your garment he humiliated you, and when you retaliated against him and tore his garment you humiliated him, and he is the one who started? So we tear his garment even if it is more expensive? Or do we say we tear his garment if it is similar to the first or comparable to it, otherwise not? Yes, because the one whose garment is worth ten has his pride broken just like the one whose garment is worth one hundred. The intention is to humiliate the aggressor and break his pride. Based on this, we say: if he tears your garment, tear his. Now, is the criterion the area or the proportion? This person is short.