strong and firm. The discussion of this issue is divided into two sections: the first is regarding the principle of the obligation of liability, and the second is regarding its amount.

As for the first, liability is only required for the intercourse with a young girl or a thin woman who cannot bear intercourse, not for an adult woman who can bear it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i stated: Liability is required in all cases, because it is an offense (jinayah), and therefore liability is required for it, just as if it were a strange woman. Our argument is that it is a permitted act of intercourse, so the liability for what is damaged by it is not required, similar to the virginity [of a bride]. Furthermore, it is an action permitted by one whose permission is valid, so what is damaged by its extension is not liable, just as if she had given permission for medical treatment that leads to such [damage], or as in the amputation of a thief or the carrying out of retribution (qisas). The opposite of this is the young girl or one coerced into adultery. Once this is established, he is obligated to pay the dower (mahr) named in the marriage contract, along with the compensation (arsh) for the offense. The compensation for the offense is to be paid from his own wealth if it was purely intentional, which is when he knows that she cannot endure it and that his intercourse will cause her to become "ifda" (i.e., cause the tearing/ripping mentioned). However, if he did not know that, and it was such that it could be expected not to lead to it, then it is an intentional error (amd al-khata'), so it is upon his paternal kin (aqila), unless it is according to the opinion of those who say the paternal kin do not bear the intentional error, in which case it is from his own wealth.

The second section: Regarding the amount of the obligation, it is one-third of the blood money. This is the opinion of Qatada and Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i said: The full blood money is required. This was also narrated from 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, because he destroyed the benefit of intercourse, so the blood money is required, as if he had severed her labia. Our argument is what was narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, that he decreed for ifda (tearing/ripping) one-third of the blood money. We do not know of any disagreement among the Companions regarding this. Furthermore, this is an offense that pierces the barrier between the urinary tract and the male passage, so its obligation is one-third of the blood money, like the ja'ifah. We do not concede that it prevents intercourse. As for the severing of the labia, it only required the full blood money because it is the severing of two limbs that have utility and beauty, so it resembles the severing of the lips.