—the innermost part of the body cavity, such as the abdomen, chest, or throat—because it is impossible to ensure perfect exactness and avoid either excess or shortfall.

Ibn Mājah relates in a prophetic narration: “There is no retaliation for a maʾmūmah, a jāʾifah, or a munqilah.” A maʾmūmah is a head wound that reaches the membrane of the brain; a jāʾifah is one that penetrates the body cavity; and a munqilah is one that crushes the skull and displaces the bone.

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said: “Retaliation for wounds is established by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, on condition that equality can be achieved. Thus, if he inflicted a cut, the victim may inflict an equivalent cut upon him. But when equivalence is impossible—such as breaking an internal bone or inflicting a superficial wound that falls short of a muḍīḥah—retaliation is not prescribed; instead the blood-money is due.”

As for retaliation for a blow delivered with the hand, a stick, a whip, or the like, the Shaykh said: “One group held that no retaliation applies and that only discretionary punishment (taʿzīr) is warranted. Yet the practice transmitted from the caliphs and other Companions and Successors shows that retaliation is indeed legislated in such cases. This is the explicit view of Aḥmad and other jurists, and it is supported by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. That is the correct position.

ʿUmar said, ‘I did not send my officials to flog your bodies; by Him in whose hand is my soul, if anyone does so I shall exact retaliation from him. I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ exact retaliation for himself.’ Recorded by Aḥmad. The meaning is that if the ruler strikes one of his subjects with an unlawful blow, retaliation is taken from him, whereas for a blow sanctioned by the Sacred Law there is, by unanimous agreement, no retaliation.” End of the Shaykh’s words.