This, however, is an anomalous opinion concerning wounds. The two opinions are well known from Mālik only in cases of killing, concerning whether blood money may be imposed on the killer regardless of his consent.

Section

As for intentional injury for which retaliation is not prescribed because it would be fatal or cannot be carried out, the prescribed compensation is due, or an independently assessed amount where no compensation has been prescribed. This is payable from the offender’s own wealth if it is less than one-third of the full blood money. If it amounts to one-third or more, three opinions are reported from Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him.

The first is that it is payable from his own wealth without distinction, because the injury is intentional; … accidental injury, since retaliation cannot be carried out.

The third is that it is payable from his own wealth if he has any, and by the ‘āqila if he has none.

Section

Likewise, injuries involving the severing of limbs and bodily organs, or the loss of senses and bodily functions, fall into two categories: accidental and intentional.

Intentional injury is further divided into two categories: that for which retaliation is prescribed and that for which it is not. Accidental injury entails the prescribed compensation where a fixed amount exists, and independently assessed compensation where none exists. This is payable from the offender’s own wealth unless it amounts to one-third of the full blood money or more. Intentional injury for which retaliation is not prescribed entails compensation payable from the offender’s own wealth if it is less than one-third. If it amounts to one-third or more, the three opinions previously mentioned concerning wounds apply. For intentional injury subject to retaliation, retaliation is prescribed unless the two parties agree upon a settlement, according to the well-known position of the school,