Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Wounds and diyat: limbs, compensation and qisas > Bodily offences below homicide
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
Bodily harm below homicide gathers three types: wounds in the rest of the body, talion in the limbs, and the abolition of bodily functions without cutting or gouging. The ja'ifa, a wound reaching a body cavity, forms its core: no talion, one third of the diya, and two thirds when it crosses through the body.
Each ruling is attributed to the school holding it, each hadith carries its original reference, and the notes of the source sheets are reproduced as they stand.
The starting rule: wounds in the rest of the body carry talion according to most scholars.
Ibn Qudama said: the wound whose like can be taken without loss or excess is every wound that reaches a bone, like the moudiha of the head and face; no known disagreement on the lawfulness of talion in the moudiha, which is every wound exposing the bone of the head or face; Allah prescribed talion for wounds, and if talion were not due here, the authority of the verse would fall; on the model of the moudiha, every wound reaching a bone elsewhere in the body, in the forearm, upper arm, leg or thigh, according to most scholars, and this is the explicit text of ash-Shafi'i.
Some of his companions said: no talion in such wounds, because no estimation is possible; this saying is not correct: Allah said:
And for wounds, talion.
Surah al-Ma'ida, 45
and taking the like is possible there, since the wound reaches the bone, placing it at the rank of the moudiha; estimation in the moudiha is neither what calls for talion nor what blocks it: it rested on the severity of the disfigurement and the nobility of the site, and for that reason what lies beyond it, the gashes of the head and face, has no fixed amount and no talion; likewise the ja'ifa has a fixed arsh and no talion.
The imam al-Imrani said: a wound outside the head and face is examined: if it reaches the bone, talion is obligatory; some of our companions say talion is not due, because the estimation of its arsh differs from that of the moudiha of the head and face; the explicit text is the first opinion, since taking without loss is possible, placing it at the rank of the moudiha of the head and face.
If the wound sits on a hairy spot, it is recommended to shave the place, mark it with a black spot or the like, then measure the length and width as for the moudiha of the head; if the wound is on the upper arm and exceeds the length of the offender's upper arm, the taking does not descend to the forearm; if it is on the thigh and exceeds his thigh, it does not descend to the leg; if on the leg, it does not descend to the foot, just as the moudiha of the head does not descend to the face and nape.
A wound below the moudiha carries no talion on the famous position of the school, since equivalence there is impossible; wounds below the moudiha of the head and face follow the same rule; a wound that is a ja'ifa or that breaks a bone carries no talion; if it reaches the bone then fractures or turns into a ja'ifa, talion is due up to the bone, and the arsh is due for what exceeds it.
An-Nawawi said: what carries no talion on the head and face carries none elsewhere; the moudiha exposing the bone of the chest, neck, forearm or fingers holds two positions on talion: none, or talion, and the more correct is the latter, apparent in the text, given the ease of taking the like; in summary, talion is due for every wound, whatever its site, provided it reaches a bone without breaking it.
The people of knowledge agree that the ja'ifa belongs to the wounds of the body, not to the gashes of the skull; it occurs in the back and the belly; it carries no talion and it is one third of the diya; if it crosses to the other side, it is two ja'ifas worth two thirds of the diya; it is reported in the letter of Amr ibn Hazm that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
In the ja'ifa, one third of the diya.
reported in the letter of Amr ibn Hazm (a sound hadith)
And the hadith of Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father and his grandfather, attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him), says:
And for the ja'ifa, one third of the expiation.
reported by Abu Dawud (4564) and by Ahmad (2/224)
The term al-'aql in this hadith designates the diya valued in money.
Ibn al-Mundhir said: the ja'ifa is one third of the diya of a life by agreement; it is the one that pierces to the cavity; it occurs only in the belly, the back or the flanks; no dispute among the scholars over this. And he said: they agree on one third of the diya in the ja'ifa, except what is reported from Makhul, who distinguished intent from accident: an intentional ja'ifa would be two thirds of the diya and an accidental one a third. Abu Bakr said: we know of no one who followed him; this lone view contradicts the apparent hadith of Amr ibn Hazm, and there is no difference between accident and intent in the ja'ifa; all the scholars we know place two thirds in the crossing ja'ifa, and it reached us that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq ruled so.
Ibn Abd al-Barr said: the scholars agree that the ja'ifa belongs to the wounds of the body, not to the gashes of the skull; it occurs in the back and the belly; if anything of the wound reaches the cavity, even through the point of a needle, it is a ja'ifa: it is one third of the diya and there is no talion, even if intentional.
Ibn Hubayra said: the ja'ifa is the one reaching the cavity; it is one third of the diya by consensus. Ibn Qudama said: this is the view of most scholars: the Medinans, the Kufans, the people of hadith and the holders of opinion, except Makhul; our proof is the word of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the letter of Amr ibn Hazm, and Ibn Umar reported the like from the Prophet (peace be upon him). The reason: the ja'ifa is a wound with a fixed amount, so its arsh does not vary with intent and accident, like the moudiha; no other wound of the body, free of limb cutting and bone fracture, has a fixed amount apart from the ja'ifa.
The ja'ifa is what reaches the cavity from the belly, the back, the chest, the throat at the bleeding point, the hip or the like; Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned that Malik, Abu Hanifa, ash-Shafi'i, al-Batti and their companions agree that the ja'ifa exists only in the cavity. Ibn al-Qasim said: the ja'ifa is what reaches the cavity, even through the point of a needle; but one who pierces the cheek to the inside of the mouth commits no ja'ifa, for the inside of the mouth follows the rule of the outside; and one who stabs the cheek breaking the bone through to the mouth commits no ja'ifa for the same reason.
Ash-Shafi'i said in one of his two views: it is a ja'ifa, for it reached a cavity; this saying is refuted by the cheek pierced to the mouth; then the offender owes the diya of a hashima for the bone fracture, and a hukuma for the excess; a nose wound pushed through to the mouth follows the same ruling as the cheek; and a wound of the limb reaching the urinary canal is no ja'ifa, for it is not a cavity where loss is feared.
Two ja'ifas separated by a barrier are worth two thirds of the diya; if the offender breaks the barrier, or the sepsis merges the two wounds, they become one ja'ifa worth a third; if a stranger or the victim breaks the barrier, the first offender owes two thirds and the stranger a third, and what matches the victim's act falls away; if breaking the barrier was needed for treatment and the victim broke it, or someone else on his order, or his guardian, or the physician on his order, nothing is owed for the breaking: two thirds remain owed for the first offender. If one man inflicts a ja'ifa and another widens it, each owes the arsh of a ja'ifa: the act of each, taken alone, would have been a ja'ifa, and its ruling does not fall by joining the act of another, for a man's act is not built on another's act; if the physician widens it with the consent of the victim or his guardian for his benefit, nothing falls on him.
If the offender cuts the thigh and pushes the knife to the hip inflicting a ja'ifa, or cuts the shoulder and draws the knife to the chest inflicting a ja'ifa, he owes the arsh of the ja'ifa and a hukuma for the wound, since the wound lies outside the site of the ja'ifa; liability splits as with the moudiha of the head drawn to the nape: the arsh of the moudiha and a hukuma for the wound of the nape.
The people of science agree that the crossing ja'ifa is worth two thirds of the diya. Ibn al-Mundhir said: everyone we know among the scholars places two thirds in the crossing ja'ifa, and it reached us that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq ruled so. Al-Kasani said: if it crosses to the other side, they are two ja'ifas worth two thirds of the diya.
It is reported that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq ruled two thirds of the diya for a crossing ja'ifa, in an assembly of Companions, and that none opposed him: this stands as consensus. Ibn Qudama said: a wound of the belly that exits on the other side forms two ja'ifas; this is the view of most scholars: Ata, Mujahid, Qatada, Malik, ash-Shafi'i and the holders of opinion. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: I know of no disagreement among them on this. It is related from a companion of ash-Shafi'i that he held it one single ja'ifa, and it is related also from Abu Hanifa: the ja'ifa runs from the outside of the body to the cavity, while the second wound runs from the inside to the outside.
Our argument: the report of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, that a man pierced another with an arrow and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) ruled two thirds of the diya, with no dissenter, which stands as consensus; reported by Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan. And it is reported from Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father and his grandfather, that Umar ruled the arsh of two ja'ifas for the crossing ja'ifa, because it crossed at two points. That detail is not sound: the rule rests on the wound reaching the cavity, not on the manner of reaching it; the form of the act has no effect when the meaning is equal, and what they describe is not mentioned in any report; the custom is that the ja'ifa occurs this way, and that is not taken into account: just as the custom is that it occurs by iron, while it remains a ja'ifa if it occurs otherwise.
The proof: one who inserts his hand into a ja'ifa and tears the belly at another spot owes the arsh of one ja'ifa, with no known disagreement; likewise one who exposes the bone of the head then withdraws the knife at another spot: they are two moudihas; and one who drives in a hashima with two exits: they are two hashimas.
The jurists agree that a wound whose sepsis spreads to a life holds the offender liable. Ibn Qudama said: the sepsis of the wound is guaranteed without disagreement: it is the effect of the wound, the wound is guaranteed, so its effect is too. Ibn al-Qayyim said: the sepsis of the wound is guaranteed by agreement. Al-Kasani said: the sepsis shows that the wound carries no cause of death in itself: with the sepsis, the cause of homicide becomes binding by consensus: talion if the act is intentional, the diya if accidental.
The third type: abolishing the functions of the body without cutting or gouging: destroying the function of a limb that remains in place, such as hearing, sight, taste or their like. The jurists agree that the diya is obligatory for the blow that destroys hearing, sight, or paralyzes a hand.
They differ on taking talion when the function is destroyed. The majority of jurists, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, require talion for sight and hearing by agreement, and for smell on the Maliki and Hanbali view and the sound view of the Shafi'is: these functions have fixed seats and the people of experience have methods to destroy them.
It is reported that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) was brought a man who had slapped the eye of another until his sight was gone while the eye stayed in place; Uthman wanted to shackle him, but it seemed burdensome to him and to the people; the matter came to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): he ordered the offender brought, heated a brass rod, placed it over his eye, faced it to the sun, then brought a mirror near his eye, and his sight returned while his eye stayed in place. It is reported also that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered a mirror brought, that it was heated then drawn near, and that it cut the eye of the offender, leaving it open.
The Malikis say: one who slaps a man until the light of his sight is gone, the eye standing in place unkenneled, the like is done to the offender: if talion is possible in that state, he is shackled; otherwise compensation in value is due; the same ruling for hearing, smell and taste. Likewise, one who strikes the hand or foot of a man intentionally until the blow paralyzes the limb: the like is done to the offender; otherwise compensation in value is due from his property, not from his band of agnates. Ashhab restricted this to the case where the wound carries talion; a blow to the head paralyzing the hand carries no talion: the diya of the hand is due; and the return of paralysis after a blow differs from the loss of sight.
The Shafi'is say: the loss of the light of the eye through a hashima or its like, which carries no talion, is exacted by camphor or by a heated iron drawn near the pupil; the arsh of the hashima is due, talion there being impossible; through a moudiha, or through a slap that destroys the light most of the time, the like of the same act is exacted; if it fails, it is destroyed by camphor; if destruction is possible only by harming the pupil, talion falls and the diya is due, for taking more than one's right is not allowed. Hearing, smell, taste, speech and striking power, but not the intellect, follow sight: their abolition calls for talion through sepsis, since their seats are fixed and the people of experience have methods to destroy them; the intellect is excluded, for it cannot be removed by sepsis: no reliable treatment destroys it, and people differ on its seat.
Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari said: what is settled of talion in hearing is what the two shaykhs affirmed, reporting it from the correction of the imam. Ibn ar-Rif'a and others said: the school forbids talion there, this being the view of the majority, stated explicitly in the Kitab al-Umm.
An-Nawawi said: the author of the Muhadhdhab mentioned that if the head is struck until the intellect goes, or the nose until smell goes, or the ear until hearing goes, there is no talion in the intellect, smell or hearing; the nearest position is to forbid talion in the intellect and require it in smell, striking power and taste.
The Hanbalis say: one who exposes the bone of a man, wounds him below the moudiha or slaps him until the light of his eye, his hearing or his smell is gone, has his bone exposed; if the like is achieved, it suffices, otherwise what destroys it is used without touching the pupil, the ear or the nose; if it is possible only by harming those organs, talion falls, equivalence being impossible; the diya is due from the property of the offender, not from his band of agnates, for the band does not bear an intentional act.
Ibn Qudama said: the qadi mentioned that requital is taken by a slap like his slap; this is the school of ash-Shafi'i, and the saying is not sound: a slap alone carries no talion, so it carries none either when its sepsis spreads to the eye, like the wound below the moudiha; and when the slap does not strike the eye, its like is not exacted without the fear of spoiling the organ; with that fear, holding back is better; and talion below a life is done only with the equipped instrument, like the moudiha. The qadi said: talion is obligatory only if the slap usually does that, for a slap that rarely leads to it is quasi-intent without talion, like quasi-intent in homicide. Abu Bakr said: talion is obligatory in every case, by the generality of the word of Allah on the eye for the eye, and because the slap that pours out the light of the eye ranks as a wound, and a wound is not measured by its most frequent fatality.
If the slap whitens the eye and fixes it: if the treatment of the offender's eye is possible, whitening and fixing it without touching the pupil, it is done; if only part is possible, like the loss of sight without the whitening, a hukuma is due for what could not be exacted, like one who exacts a moudiha and takes the arsh of the rest of his wound; on the view of Abu Bakr, no arsh is due alongside talion. The qadi said: if requital by slap took place and the light went without whitening or fixing, it is treated if possible; otherwise nothing is owed, as if the victim's moudiha healed ugly and the offender's healed well; Ibn Qudama showed the flaw of that argument.
A wound below the moudiha that extinguishes the light of the eye is not requited by the like of the same stroke, with no known disagreement: that stroke carries no talion even without loss of light, so not with it either; the light of the eye is treated as in the slap; if the wound is above the moudiha, a moudiha is exacted; the arsh of the surplus is discussed in two views. The companions of ash-Shafi'i differ on talion for sight in all these cases: some say there is no talion, for it is not due through sepsis, like the cut finger whose sepsis destroys the next one; others say talion is obligatory by a single opinion, since the light of the eye cannot be reached directly: it is exacted through sepsis as for a life.
The Hanafis: al-Kasani said: an intentional moudiha that destroys sight carries no talion on the view of Abu Hanifa; the arsh is due for the wound and for the sight; his two companions say: talion for the moudiha and the diya for the sight, a transmission reported from Muhammad; Ibn Sama'a reported in the Nawadir that talion covers both; the meaning of this transmission: intent upon a limb where talion is possible calls for talion, like sepsis reaching a life; the apparent view of the two: the loss of sight proceeds through causation, not through sepsis, since the wound remains a wound after the sight is gone; and harm through causation does not call for talion, as with the dug well. If the eyes, the tongue, the hearing and intercourse are destroyed, none carries talion on the view of Abu Hanifa; on the view of his companions, talion covers the moudiha only, not the eyes, which carry the arsh; on the transmission of the Nawadir, talion covers the eyes, not the tongue, hearing or intercourse. A blow to the head destroying the intellect, hearing, speech, smell, taste, intercourse or seed carries no talion at all: no blow can produce these effects, so the like cannot be taken; likewise paralysis of a hand or foot: no talion, for no blow can paralyze.
In practice, the retained frame is this: the ja'ifa, a wound reaching a body cavity, never carries talion; it is worth one third of the diya, two thirds if it crosses the body, every new wound outside its site carrying its own arsh; wounds exposing the bone carry talion on the majority view; the sepsis of a wound is guaranteed by agreement; and the destruction of a function (sight, hearing, smell, taste, speech) is requited on the majority view when the seat is fixed and the method mastered, the diya remaining due when equivalence is impossible.