Shalal (paralysis: its rulings for touch, prayer, injury, retaliation and marriage)

In language, shalal is the stiffening of a limb or the loss of its movement. In the technical sense it is the corruption of a limb and the loss of its movement, so that the limb loses its function. Loss of feeling altogether is not required; what is meant is the failure of the work of the limb. ¹

The Malikis and Hanbalis limit breach of ablution by touch to touch done with desire, and they hold that touching the private parts also breaks it. They treat the touched limb or the limb that touches as equal whether healthy or paralysed. The detail of the disagreement belongs to the chapter on minor impurity. ²

The majority of jurists hold that a sick or paralysed person performs whatever pillars of prayer he can, since one unable to act is not obliged to act. If he cannot stand he prays seated with bowing and prostration; if he cannot do that he prays seated by signalling; he makes the prostration lower than the bowing. If he cannot sit he lies on his back and signals, since the falling of a pillar is by reason of the excuse and is measured by it. This rests on a report of 'Imran ibn Husayn: pray standing, and if you cannot, seated, and if you cannot, on your side, signalling. Qadikhan holds that prayer falls from a sick person who cannot even signal with his head. ^{2 3}

The jurists differ on retaliation for paralysis caused by a blow or a wound, when the function is lost though the limb remains. The detail belongs to the entry on injuries short of death. ²

If a man with a sound hand cuts off the hand of a paralysed person, the sound hand is not cut for the paralysed one, and likewise a paralysed foot or tongue, since they are not equal; a fair assessment of damages is due. If the injured part is a paralysed ear or nose, the full blood money for the organ is due, since a paralysed hand or foot has no use left but appearance. ²

All agree that a sound limb is taken for a sound limb. When a paralysed person's hand is cut by a sound person, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis give the injured party the choice of retaliation or blood money; retaliation is only taken if people of experience say the blood stops by cauterising. The Malikis do not cut the hand of an offender who is paralysed for a sound hand, for want of equality, and he owes blood money. ³ The Hanafis, except Zufar, and the Malikis hold that a paralysed limb is not cut for a paralysed limb, since paralysis is a cause whose effects vary in the body, and equality cannot be known except by estimate. The Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Zufar hold that a paralysed limb is cut for a paralysed one when the two are equally paralysed, or when the offender's paralysis is greater and the blood would not be hard to stop. Zufar adds that if the injured limb is less paralysed, the injured party may cut or take the compensation for it. ³

All agree that if the husband is impotent the wife has the right to annul. If the paralysis is in a part other than the male organ, it is not a defect of marriage, since it does not defeat enjoyment and its harm does not spread; and a marriage is dissolved only by text, consensus or analogy, and none applies here. ^{3 4}