sight; the ear’s particular function is hearing; the hand’s particular functions are grasping and touch; and the tongue’s particular function is speech. For bodily members with functions peculiar to them, the prescribed blood money is due for the loss of that particular function. The member itself is treated as subsidiary to its function when the function is lost along with it. If the member alone is lost while its function remains, either assessed compensation or full blood money is due. For example, someone who destroys a man’s sight while leaving his eye intact owes full blood money. If he destroys his sight and puts out his eye, full blood money is likewise due, with the eye itself treated as subsidiary to sight. The same applies to the ear and hearing. If someone cuts off the projecting parts of both ears while hearing remains, assessed compensation is due according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position. Likewise, assessed compensation is due if someone cuts off a deaf man’s ears, or puts out the eyes of a blind man whose eyes were intact.

Section

There is disagreement over the seat of the intellect. Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him, held that its seat is the heart. This is also the position of the theologians of Ahl al-Sunnah. Ibn al-Mājishūn, one of our scholars, held that its seat is the head. This is also the position of Abū Hanīfa and the Muʿtazila. The evidence for Mālik’s position, may Allah have mercy on him, is Allah Most High’s statement:

“Have they not travelled through the land, so that they may have hearts with which to reason, or ears with which to hear?” [al-Hajj: 46]

Allah Most High also says:

“Do they have feet with which to walk? Or hands with which to grasp? Or eyes with which to see? Or ears with which to hear?” [al-Aʿrāf: 195]

Thus, Allah Most High ascribed reason to the heart because it exists through it and resides in it, just as He ascribed sight to the eye, hearing to the ear, and grasping to the hand, since each of these faculties resides in the bodily member to which it is ascribed.

If someone suffers a head wound reaching the brain and consequently loses his intellect, then, according to Mālik’s position, he is entitled both to the blood money for loss of intellect and to the blood money prescribed for that wound. Neither payment is subsumed under the other, since Mālik does not regard the head as the seat of the intellect or the intellect as a function peculiar to it. This is like someone destroying a man’s hearing and putting out his eye with a single blow. According to the position of Abū Hanīfa and Ibn al-Mājishūn,