Section: Regarding the tongue of a mute person, there are two narrations, similar to the two narrations regarding a withered hand. The same applies to every limb whose benefit has vanished while its form remains, such as a withered leg, or a finger or penis if it is withered (ashall), or the penis of a castrated person or an impotent person, if we say that their full blood money is not due, and similar cases. All of this is derived from the two narrations: one of them being that it entails one-third of its blood money, and the other being a government-determined assessment (hukumah).

Section: As for the hand, foot, finger, or tooth that are extra, and the like, there is nothing for them except a government-determined assessment (hukumah). Al-Qadi said: This is in the same sense as the withered hand, so it would be based on its analogy and derived from the two narrations. What we have mentioned is more correct, because there is no [fixed] assessment for this, nor is it in the sense of that which has an assessment. Furthermore, it is not valid to draw an analogy between this and a limb whose benefit has vanished but whose beauty remains, because these extra parts possess no beauty; rather, they are a deformity in creation, a defect for which a sold item may be returned, and by which value is diminished. How, then, can it be valid to draw an analogy between them and that which results in beauty? Moreover, even if some beauty were to be obtained from it, it contradicts the beauty of the limb by which the perfection of creation is achieved, and it differs significantly in itself, so a government-determined assessment (hukumah) is mandatory for it. It is also possible that nothing is mandatory for it, due to what we have mentioned.

Section: There is a difference of opinion in the narration regarding the severing of the penis after its glans has been removed, and the severing of the palm after its fingers. Abu Talib reported from Ahmad that it entails one-third of its blood money, and likewise for the lobe of the ear. There is also an opinion from Ahmad that in all of these cases, a government-determined assessment (hukumah) is due. The correct view in this matter is that it entails a government-determined assessment (hukumah), due to the lack of an assessment for it and the impossibility of drawing an analogy between it and that which has an assessment; for the withered [limb] retains its form, while this has not retained its form—only some of what entails blood money, or the basis of what entails blood money, remains. As for severing the forearm after the palm has been severed, or the lower leg after the foot has been severed, it is appropriate that a government-determined assessment (hukumah) be mandatory in this case, in one single view; because making one-third of the hand's blood money mandatory for it would lead to the obligation being the same regardless of whether the palm and foot remain or are gone, despite the disparity between them and the lack of a textual ruling regarding them. And Allah knows best.