Sinn (the tooth) and retaliation and compensation for it

In the lexicon sinn is a single tooth, a piece of bone set in the jaw; a person has thirty-two, though other counts divide them into incisors, canines and molars. The sinn of an object is any toothed, pointed part of it, like the teeth of a comb or a saw. ¹

The jurists agree that retaliation is due for a deliberately extracted tooth, on the basis of the verse in al-Ma'ida (45) on the law for life, eye and tooth, and the report of Anas about a tooth broken in the case of a girl of the Ansar, when the Prophet ﷺ ordered retaliation. ¹ A sound tooth is taken for a sound tooth; a discoloured tooth is taken for a sound one at the choice of the victim. If the defect is in the victim's own tooth there is no retaliation, and arsh is owed instead. ³ Upper is matched with upper and lower with lower, incisor with incisor, canine with canine and molar with molar, since they differ in use and place. ³ Most jurists hold that the offender's tooth may be extracted, since it can be matched without wrong. Some Hanafis say that the offender's tooth is not extracted but filed down to the gum. ^{3 6} The Malikis require retaliation for extraction even if the tooth became very unstable, since what counts is the day of the offence. ³

The Hanafis and Hanbalis require retaliation, carried out by filing: half for half, a third for a third, each part for its like; it is not measured by area, lest the whole tooth be taken for part. The retaliation is carried out by filing, and only after experts say the tooth will not loosen or discolour. ⁶ The Shafi'is hold that there is no retaliation for breaking a tooth, since the break cannot be reliably matched. ⁶

The jurists agree that retaliation is taken only for the tooth of one whose milk teeth have fallen out and been replaced. Extracting the tooth of a child who has not yet shed his milk teeth creates no immediate liability, since teeth often grow back. ⁶ If it grows back sound in its place there is nothing owed, except that Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis requires a sum for pain and the physician's fee. If it grows back defective, the loss is assessed proportionally to the diya; if it grows back black, red or yellow, crooked, or with an extra tooth beside it, a just assessment is due. ^{6 4} If it does not grow back and no hope remains, the victim may choose retaliation or the diya of the tooth. If experts say it may grow back by a certain time, the victim waits; if it does not, retaliation is due. Retaliation is not taken for a minor in his minority; it is deferred until he comes of age. ⁴ If a minor victim dies before despair is established, Abu Hanifa requires no retaliation and no diya, but a just assessment; the Malikis require retaliation for intentional extraction and diya for error for his heirs; the Hanbalis require diya. ⁴

Most jurists require immediate retaliation when a tooth of one whose milk teeth have fallen out is extracted, without waiting for regrowth, since it is taken that it will not return. Some Hanafis, some Shafi'is and the qadi of the Hanbalis say the experts should be asked: if they say it will not return, retaliation is immediate; if they say it may, the victim waits. ⁴ If the offender's tooth regrows after retaliation, the majority hold that it is not extracted again and the arsh is not recovered; the Hanbalis, some Malikis and some Shafi'is allow the offender to recover the arsh he paid. ^{7 8} If a tooth pulled out is reset in its place and fixed, retaliation is due for intentional extraction, and diya for error, since a re-set tooth is not as it was. ⁷ If the offender's tooth regrows after retaliation but the victim's did not, the Shafi'is in the preferred view permit the victim to extract it again; in one view among them and some Hanbalis he may not. ^{8 2}

By agreement the diya for each tooth is five camels, whether front or back teeth, on the basis of the letter of Amr ibn Hazm (may God be pleased with him) reading "in the tooth five camels", and a report from Amr ibn Shu'ayb reading "in the teeth, five and five". ^{2 5}

Most jurists allow a man to fit a tooth of gold or silver, and to bind a loose tooth with them when needed; Abu Hanifa forbids gold since silver suffices. A woman is allowed the same, and is forbidden to fit teeth with gold or silver for adornment. ² Filing the teeth apart for beauty is forbidden, since it changes creation; a hadith of Ibn Mas'ud curses such practices. Filing is allowed for treatment or for a defect. ⁵ Cleaning the teeth is treated under the entries on the miswak and the sunnas of purity. ⁵