What is the evidence for requiring similarity in name and location for the execution of qisas for offenses less than murder, and for the forfeiture of qisas and the determination of diyya (blood money) when the location is damaged?

Proportionality must be observed in retaliation (Qisas). The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, ruled that for a blind eye (al-ʿawrā’ al-sāda) that is plucked out, the indemnity (diyah) is one-third of its full diyah. For a paralyzed hand (al-yad al-shalāʾ) that is amputated, the indemnity is one-third of its full diyah. And for a blackened tooth (al-sinn al-sawdāʾ) that is extracted, the indemnity is one-third of its full diyah. Al-Zuhri held that an eye for an eye is a valid retaliation (qisas), even if the remaining eye of the one-eyed person is the one being retaliated against. Al-Shafi’i was of the opinion that the indemnity for the eye of a one-eyed person is half the indemnity of a normal eye, which is fifty dinars. Umar and Uthman both agreed that if a one-eyed person blinds the eye of another, he owes an amount equivalent to the indemnity of his own eye. However, Ali held that retaliation (qisas) is obligatory based on the verse: "the eye for the eye." Umar ruled that for a paralyzed hand, a blind eye that is otherwise sound (al-ʿayn al-qāʾimah al-ʿawrāʾ), and a blackened tooth, the indemnity for each is one-third of the full diyah. Malik stated that if the sound eye of a one-eyed person is intentionally blinded, the victim has the choice between retaliation (qisas) or receiving the indemnity. Malik also mentioned that for a blind eye that is otherwise sound and a paralyzed hand, there is no specific, predetermined indemnity (ʿaql musammā), but rather it is subject to ijtihad (independent juristic reasoning).