As for wounds to the head, the first is the ḥāriṣah: a wound that merely cuts into the skin. No retaliation applies to it; rather, it carries an assessed compensation. Next is the dāmiyah: a wound that cuts into the skin and causes it to bleed; it likewise carries an assessed compensation. Next is the dāmiʿah: a wound from which blood flows through the cut in the skin like a tear; it carries an assessed compensation. Next is the mutalāḥimah: a wound that cuts through the skin and enters the flesh; it carries an assessed compensation. Next is the bāḍiʿah: a wound that cuts through the flesh beneath the skin until it becomes exposed; it carries an assessed compensation. Next is the simḥāq: a wound that cuts through all the flesh beneath the skin, leaving only a thin membrane over the skull bone; it carries an assessed compensation. The assessed compensations for these wounds increase according to their order of severity.

Next is the muḍiḥah: a wound that cuts through the skin, flesh, and membrane, exposing the bone. Retaliation applies to it; if the victim waives retaliation, five camels are due.

Next is the hāshimah: a wound that exposes the bone and fractures the skull bone until it breaks. Ten camels are due for it. If the victim seeks retaliation for the fracture, he is not entitled to it; but if he seeks retaliation for the muḍiḥah, retaliation is taken for that wound, and five camels are given for the additional fracture. This is the position indicated by the analogy of Aḥmad: that retaliation is combined with compensation for the injury that is not itself subject to retaliation. For he said, according to the report of Ibn Manṣūr, concerning a sound-sighted man who deliberately gouges out the eye of a one-eyed man: “If he wishes to take retaliation from one of his eyes, he is entitled to half the diyah; and if he wishes, he may take the full diyah.”

According to the analogy of Abū Bakr’s position, however, if he chooses retaliation, he is not entitled to compensation. He said concerning a man who cuts off a hand with all its fingers while his own hand is missing one finger, and the victim chooses retaliation and seeks the diyah for one finger: “He is not entitled to the diyah for the finger.” The ruling in both cases is the same.