blood-money payments: eleven for injuries to the head and seven for injuries to the body. Those relating to the head are: loss of reason; hearing; the projecting portions of the ears, according to Ashhab; sight; smell, though this is disputed; the nose; taste, although I know of no explicit statement concerning it; speech; the two lips; the scalp, meaning the skin covering the head; and the molars and other teeth, for which the combined compensation exceeds one full blood-money payment according to Mālik’s school. Those relating to the body are: the two hands, the two feet, the spine, the chest, the penis, the two testicles, and loss of the ability to have intercourse. Eighteen blood-money payments may likewise be due for injuries inflicted upon a woman, since she has three grounds for such payments that a man does not: the two labia, the two nipples, and the two buttocks according to Ashhab. Similarly, a man has three grounds that a woman does not: loss of the ability to have intercourse, the penis, and the two testicles.
Section
Intentional injury requiring retaliation for the destruction of a bodily member falls into three categories, according to the assailant’s apparent conduct and intent:
The first is deliberately striking someone out of hostility and anger.
The second is deliberately striking someone to discipline him, when the person administering the discipline is entitled to do so.
The third is deliberately striking someone in play.
When someone deliberately strikes another out of hostility and anger, the blow must have landed either somewhere other than the bodily member destroyed or on that member itself. If the blow lands elsewhere—for example, if he strikes the victim’s head and thereby causes the loss of an eye—there is agreement that retaliation may not be exacted against the assailant’s eye. Rather, blood money is due, payable either from his own wealth or by those collectively liable for his blood money, according to the differing opinions reported from Ibn al-Qāsim on this matter.
If, however, he strikes the victim with a slap, a whip, or something similar, where it is apparent that he did not intend to put out his eye, but the blow strikes the eye and puts it out, there are two views:
The first, which is the well-known position in the school, is that this constitutes intentional injury and requires retaliation, except when a father injures his son, and in comparable cases.