His approach, then, is to rely exclusively on scriptural proof (tawqīf); whatever organ has not been expressly assigned a diyah through transmitted evidence defaults to a discretionary assessment (ḥukūmah). Furthermore, the eyebrows are not organs that perform an essential or clearly discernible function in the human constitution.

As for the eyelids, it has been said—this being the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī and the Kufan jurists—that each lid carries one-quarter of a diyah, because the eye cannot be preserved without its lids. Others apportion one-third of a diyah to the two lower lids and two-thirds to the upper pair. All scholars agree that when the injuries a person suffers in his limbs exceed a single diyah, he is entitled to the total amount—so if both eyes and the nose are destroyed, two full diyahs are payable.

With respect to the two testes, the jurists likewise concur that the full diyah is owed for both together, and that each testicle individually entails half a diyah. Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib alone is reported to have ruled that the left testicle warrants two-thirds of a diyah—because offspring is generated from it—while the right warrants one-third. These are the rulings for paired organs.

Turning to the single organs, the majority hold that in the case of accidental injury the tongue carries a full diyah, as is narrated from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—provided the whole tongue is severed or enough of it to eliminate speech. If the portion removed does not impair speech, only a ḥukūmah is imposed.

They differ, however, about deliberate injury. Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and the Kufans do not allow qiṣāṣ for the tongue but instead require a diyah; al-Shāfiʿī makes it payable from the offender’s own wealth, whereas Mālik and the Kufans charge it to his ʿāqilah. Al-Layth and others, by contrast, permit qiṣāṣ for an intentional severing of the tongue.

Concerning the nose, there is unanimous agreement that if it is completely cut off, the full diyah is due as stated in the ḥadīth, and Mālik considers it irrelevant whether the sense of smell is lost or not. In his view, the loss of either nostril incurs a diyah, and if the second is later removed a further full diyah becomes payable.

The jurists likewise agree that a sound penis capable of intercourse carries a complete diyah. They disagree about the penis of the impotent (ʿinnīn) or the eunuch, just as they differ about the tongue of a mute person and a paralyzed hand: some assign a full diyah, others a ḥukūmah, while a third group says that the penis of an impotent man or a eunuch incurs one-third of a diyah. The majority, however, settle on a ḥukūmah. According to Mālik, the smallest injury that mandates a diyah is the severing of the glans; for the remainder of the organ he imposes a ḥukūmah.

Regarding the remaining eye of a one-eyed man, the scholars hold two opinions. One—adopted by Mālik, a group of the Medinan jurists, al-Layth, and ruled by ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Ibn ʿUmar—is that it entails the full diyah. The other—held by al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and al-Thawrī, and reported from several of the Successors—is that it carries only half a diyah, as with the eye of a fully-sighted person.

The first group argues that the single eye of a one-eyed person is equivalent to both eyes of someone who sees with two, whereas the second group cites the general wording of the ḥadīth of ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm, “For an eye, half a diyah,” and they draw an analogy with the consensus that amputating the sole hand of a person born with only one hand obliges no more than half a diyah.