This aggravation is imposed only on the father, the mother, and the paternal grandfather—and on no one else—when the killing is tinged with the claim of disciplinary correction. The precedent is the ruling of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (Allah be pleased with him) against Qatādah al-Mudlijī: he had struck his son with the flat of a sword as a disciplinary measure, but the wound reopened and the boy died. In such a case the diyah is aggravated when it is paid in gold or silver; the excess between the ordinary and aggravated valuations is taken from the parent or grandparent until the sum reaches one full diyah and one-third, and it may not exceed that amount. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam reports from Mālik that the diyah is aggravated only when it is paid in camels. Mālik’s statements also differ on the manner of aggravation, and two opinions are recorded from him. The first is that one appraises the standard diyah for accidental homicide and the aggravated diyah, notes the difference between the two, and adds that difference as a surcharge to the diyah paid in gold or silver. The second is that the aggravated diyah in camels is valued, and those who normally pay in silver or gold are obliged to pay that full value, whatever it may be, provided it does not drop below 1,000 dinars or 12,000 dirhams. The aggravated diyah falls exclusively on the killer and is taken from his own property. According to Mālik, the same aggravation applies to wounds inflicted by the father or paternal grandfather as it does to homicide. For those whose medium of payment is gold, no silver is accepted; for those who deal in silver, neither gold nor camels are accepted; and from those whose wealth is in camels nothing but camels is taken. The diyah may be settled only in camels, gold, or silver. This is the view of Mālik, his disciples, and a group of scholars in Madinah, though another group in the city disagrees. The diyahs of free women are half the diyahs of men.