His statement, “and the lower leg”: that is, two camels are due for a fracture of the lower leg. This is subject to the condition mentioned by the author in his statement:

“If it heals straight, two camels are due.” If it heals crookedly, then compensation assessed by judicial estimation is due.

For example, if the lower leg, upper arm, forearm, forearm bone, or the like heals crookedly, then compensation assessed by judicial estimation is due. The limb must also regain the movement it had before; if its movement is diminished, then such compensation is due.

For example, if after the fracture his hand becomes partially paralysed, then compensation assessed by judicial estimation is due, even if the bone heals straight, because he has lost some of its benefit.

As for the evidence for the rulings mentioned above: there are reports from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, concerning the rib, collarbone, and forearm bone (1). As for the rest, their rulings are established by analogy. The collarbone and rib are approximately of the same kind, since both are in the chest. With regard to the forearm, a report from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, states that two camels are due for a single forearm bone (2). Each hand has two forearm bones, so four camels are due for the two bones. Thus, if two camels are due when a forearm bone is fractured, then this applies all the more to the forearm, since it encompasses both bones. And if two camels are due for the forearm, then this applies all the more to the lower leg; and if two camels are due for the lower leg, then this applies all the more to the thigh. This is why our jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, analogized these cases to one another,