Section: If her urine becomes incontinent along with that, a full blood money payment is required without any addition. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i stated: A blood money payment and a discretionary compensation (hukumah) are both required, because he has caused the loss of two benefits, so their compensation (arsh) is due, just as if he had caused the loss of her speech and her sense of taste. Our argument is that it is the destruction of one single limb, so nothing was lost except for its benefits, and thus he is not liable for more than one blood money payment, just as if he had severed her tongue and her sense of taste and speech were lost. What he said is incorrect, because if he were to obligate the blood money for the two benefits, he would have to obligate two blood money payments; for incontinence of urine, according to him, necessitates one blood money payment, and ifda, according to him, separately necessitates a blood money payment, yet he did not say that. Instead, he obligated a discretionary compensation, for which there is no justification, as we do not know of anyone who has obligated a discretionary compensation for ifda.

Section: If the barrier heals, closes, and the ifda is rectified, one-third of the blood money is not required, but a discretionary compensation is required to recompense the deficiency that occurred.

Section: If he coerces a woman into adultery and she suffers ifda, he is liable for one-third of her blood money and her bridal gift of equivalent value (mahr al-mithl), because it occurred through unlawful intercourse for which no permission was granted, so he is liable for damages for what was destroyed by it, as with all other offenses. Is he also liable for the compensation for the loss of virginity? There are two narrations regarding this. The first is that he is not liable, because the compensation for virginity is included in the bridal gift of equivalent value; the bridal gift of a virgin is higher than that of a previously married woman, so the difference between them is the substitute for the virginity compensation, and thus he is not liable for it twice, as is the case regarding a wife. The second is that he is liable for it, because it is a part of her body that he destroyed through his transgression, so he is liable for its compensation, just as if he had destroyed it with his finger. As for a woman who consents to adultery, if she is an adult and he ruptures her, there is no liability upon him for her rupture. Al-Shafi'i said: He is liable, because the permitted act was intercourse, not the rupture, so it resembles the case where he severs her hand. Our argument is that this is a harm resulting from a permitted act, for which he is not liable, similar to the compensation for her virginity and her bridal gift of equivalent value, and just as if she had given permission for the severing of...