And al-Nakha'i said: There is no retaliation for a 'ja'ifah'. Ibn Majah reported in his 'Sunan' (7) from al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, from the Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him - that he said: "There is no 'qawad' (retaliation) for a 'ma'mumah', nor for a 'ja'ifah', nor for a 'munaqqilah' (displaced bone wound)." (8) This is because they are wounds in which one cannot be certain against excess, so retaliation is not mandatory for them, just like breaking bones.
Section: There is no retaliation for any of the head wounds except for the 'mudihah' (bone-exposing wound). This is the same for those below the 'mudihah', such as the 'harisah' (skin scratch), 'bazilah' (bleeding wound), 'badi'ah' (incised wound), 'mutalahimah' (fleshy wound), 'simhaq' (membrane-exposing wound), and those above it, which are the 'hashimah' (bone-crushing wound), 'munaqqilah', and 'ammah'. (11) This is the position of al-Shafi'i. As for what is above the 'mudihah', we do not know of anyone who made retaliation mandatory for them, except what was narrated from Ibn al-Zubayr that he exacted retaliation for a 'munaqqilah', but it is not established as coming from him. Among those who stated this view are Ata', Qatadah, Ibn Shubrumah, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y). Ibn al-Mundhir said: I do not know of anyone who disagreed with that. This is because they are two wounds in which one cannot be certain against excess, making them similar to the 'ma'mumah' and 'ja'ifah'. As for those below the 'mudihah', it has been narrated from Malik and the scholars of opinion that retaliation is mandatory for the 'damiyah' (bleeding wound), 'badi'ah', and 'simhaq'. Our argument is that it is a wound that does not reach the bone, so retaliation is not mandatory for it, just like the 'ma'mumah', and because one cannot be certain against excess in them, thus they resemble broken bones. The explanation for this is that if he were to exact retaliation without measuring, it would lead to him taking more than his right. If he were to consider the depth, it would lead to him retaliating for a 'badi'ah' or 'simhaq' with a 'mudihah', or for a 'badi'ah' with a 'simhaq'; because the flesh of the wounded person might be thick, such that the depth of his 'badi'ah' is like the depth of the assailant's 'mudihah', or his 'simhaq'. Furthermore, we did not consider the measure of the depth in the 'mudihah', so likewise for the others. This is the position of al-Hasan and Abu Ubayd.
(7) In: The Chapter of What Has No Retaliation, from the Book of Blood Money. Sunan Ibn Majah 2/881. (8) In M: "al-munqtalah". (9) In M: "in them". (10) In M: "and it is the same". (11) The definition of all that will come in the chapter on the blood money for wounds. (12) In the original, A, and B: "like the depth of the mudihah as [the mudihah of] the assailant". In M: "as the mudihah of the assailant". Perhaps the correct version is what we have established.
