The jurists disagreed over the parts of the body in which a muḍiḥah is recognized, even though they are all agreed on the principles we have mentioned: namely, that intentional injury requires retaliation (qiṣāṣ) and accidental injury entails blood-money.

Mālik says that a muḍiḥah exists only in the region of the head—specifically the scalp, forehead, the two cheeks, and the upper jaw. It is not deemed a muḍiḥah in the lower jaw, for that is legally treated like the neck, nor in the nose. By contrast, al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah hold that a muḍiḥah may occur in any part of the face or head.

The majority maintain that a muḍiḥah does not occur elsewhere in the body. Al-Layth and a group of scholars allow it in the side, while al-Awzāʿī says that if it does occur in the body its blood-money is half of what it would be in the face and head. A report from ʿUmar states: “For a muḍiḥah of the body there is half of one-tenth of that limb’s diyah.”

Some scholars imposed a higher assessment when a muḍiḥah of the face heals but leaves a visible blemish; they required an extra amount equal to one-half of its prescribed blood-money. Mālik transmits this opinion from Sulaymān ibn Yasār. Mālik’s own stance fluctuated: at times he adopted Sulaymān’s view, while at other times he said that nothing may be added to the stated amount. The latter is the position of the majority. Another report from Mālik says that if the face is disfigured a discretionary ḥukūmah is imposed without a fixed scale; by ḥukūmah he means the reduction in value the person would suffer were he a slave.

Regarding the hāshimah, the majority hold that it entails one-tenth of the full diyah, a ruling narrated from Zayd ibn Thābit with no Companion opposing him. A few scholars asserted that the hāshimah and the munqillah are the same, but that view is isolated.

As for the munqillah, everyone agrees that, when accidental, it carries one-tenth plus a half-tenth of the diyah; in deliberate cases the majority say there is no retaliation because of the risk involved, though it is related that Ibn al-Zubayr did enforce retaliation for it and for the maʾmūmah.

Concerning the hāshimah in deliberate injury, Ibn al-Qāsim reports from Mālik that there is no retaliation; anyone who permits retaliation for the munqillah would all the more readily permit it for the hāshimah.

There is no disagreement that the maʾmūmah does not admit retaliation and that it entails one-third of the diyah, except for what is reported from Ibn al-Zubayr. As for the jāʾifah, they agree that it is classed among bodily wounds, not head wounds; that no retaliation is taken for it; and that it carries one-third of the diyah. It is deemed a jāʾifah whenever it occurs in the back or abdomen. They differ, however, if it occurs in another limb and penetrates its cavity. Mālik relates from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab that every wound that pierces the cavity of any limb carries one-third of that limb’s diyah. Ibn Shihāb reports that he did not hold this view, and this is the position Mālik himself preferred, regarding analogy in this matter as unsound; its basis is nothing more than individual reasoning without textual support. Saʿīd, on the other hand, analogized it to the jāʾifah, much as ʿUmar did concerning a muḍiḥah in the body.

As for all other wounds inflicted on the rest of the body, in accidental cases they are compensated only by a discretionary ḥukūmah.