we do not award him ten camels, because the mūḍiḥah—which is more severe than it—has been fixed by the Sacred Law at five. We therefore do not exceed what the Sacred Law has prescribed; rather, we award him five, or slightly less. For we are not wiser than the Sacred Law. Accordingly, where the Sacred Law has set a fixed amount, compensation for an injury of the same kind must not reach that amount.

A comparable case is that of a man who is alone with a woman, sleeps with her, and enjoys intimacy with her between the thighs throughout the night. If we wish to punish him, we do not flog him one hundred lashes, because if we were to flog him one hundred lashes, we would have reached the prescribed punishment. This act is less than one that entails the prescribed punishment, so we do not impose a discretionary punishment that reaches the prescribed punishment; for that would imply that our judgment is wiser than the judgment of the Sacred Law.

Some scholars hold that, in this issue, it is permissible for the judicially assessed compensation to reach the fixed amount, or even exceed it. They argue that what the Sacred Law has prescribed cannot be exceeded, because the Sacred Law has expressly specified it. But where the Sacred Law has not fixed an amount, it has left its assessment to us. Once its assessment has been left to us, we must follow the actual degree of impairment involved. Since the Sacred Law has remained silent regarding it, this means that it intends the matter to be left to us, and we assess and consider it accordingly.

However, the well-known position of the madhhab is that, if the injury occurs in a case for which a fixed amount has been prescribed, the judicially assessed compensation must not reach that fixed amount.