The jurists also differed over fractures of bones such as the shin or the fore-arm: is retaliation (qiṣāṣ) taken for such breaks or not? Mālik and his companions held that retaliation is exacted for the fracture of every bone except the femur and the spine. Al-Shāfiʿī and al-Layth maintained that no retaliation is prescribed for any bone that is broken; Abū Ḥanīfah agreed, though he made an exception for the tooth.

A report from Ibn ʿAbbās likewise states that no retaliation is taken for any bone, and the same is related from ʿUmar. Abū ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said, “It is firmly established from the ḥadīth of Anas that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—ordered retaliation for a broken tooth.” He added, “Another ḥadīth has been transmitted stating that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—did not impose retaliation for a bone severed at a point other than a joint, but this report is weak.” It is also related from Mālik that Abū Bakr ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm carried out retaliation for a fractured femur.

They are unanimously agreed that in cases of homicide a woman’s diyah is one-half that of a man. They disagreed, however, about the diyāt for head wounds (shijāj) and for her limbs. The majority of the jurists of Madīnah said: a woman and a man are equal in the compensation for head wounds and limb injuries until the amount reaches one-third of the full diyah; once it reaches one-third, her compensation reverts to one-half of a man’s—meaning the diyah for her individual limbs vis-à-vis his.

By way of illustration: each finger of hers carries ten camels; two fingers, twenty; three fingers, thirty; but four fingers, twenty. This is the view of Mālik and his colleagues and of al-Layth ibn Saʿd. Mālik transmitted it from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib and ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr; it is also the opinion of Zayd ibn Thābit and the school of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.

Another group said: a woman’s diyah for her wounds equals that of a man up to the muḍiḥah— the wound that exposes the bone—after which her diyah becomes half of a man’s. This is the better known of the two opinions attributed to Ibn Masʿūd, is narrated from ʿUthmān, and was adopted by Shurayḥ and others.

A third group held that a woman’s diyah for any wounds or extremities is invariably half that of a man, whether the injury be slight or grave. This was the view of ʿAlī—may Allah be pleased with him—and is also reported from Ibn Masʿūd, though the more prevalent position ascribed to him is the first opinion. Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Shāfiʿī, and al-Thawrī follow this view.

Those who uphold this opinion argue that the basic rule is that a woman’s diyah is half that of a man; one must therefore adhere to this rule unless an authenticated textual proof indicates otherwise, for analogy (qiyās) is inadmissible in diyāt—especially since distinguishing between minor and major injuries runs contrary to analogy. For this reason Rabīʿah said to Saʿīd the remark that will be quoted presently. The first group, by contrast, rely only on mursal reports and on what is narrated “from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib when Rabīʿah ibn Abī …”