a judicial assessment (hukuma) is due, proportionate to its blemish. Qatada said similarly: if the nursing is lost by their amputation, then the full blood money is due for them. Our argument is that what was lost from them is something whose loss entails the loss of benefit, so the full blood money is due for them, just like the fingers along with the palm, and the glans of the male organ. The explanation of the loss of benefit is that the infant drinks and suckles through them; thus they are like the fingers on the palm. If he cuts off both breasts entirely, there is nothing in them but one blood money, just as if he were to cut off the entire male organ. If a deep abdominal wound (ja'ifa) occurs alongside their cutting, one-third of the blood money is due for it in addition to their blood money. If two deep wounds occur, the blood money and two-thirds are due. If he strikes them and paralyzes them, their blood money is due, just as if he paralyzed his two hands. If he commits an offense against them and removes their milk without paralyzing them, our companions said: a judicial assessment (hukuma) is due for them. This is the view of the companions of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that their full blood money is due, because he has removed their benefit, making it similar to the case if he had paralyzed them; this is the apparent view of Malik, al-Thawri, and Qatada. If he commits an offense against them on a young girl and she later gives birth, and no milk descends for her, the experts are to be asked. If they say, "The injury is the cause of the cessation of the milk," then he is liable for what is due from one who causes the loss of milk after its existence. If they say, "It would have ceased even without the injury," he is not liable for its compensation (arsh), because the basic principle is the exoneration of his liability, so nothing is due for it based on doubt. If he commits an offense against them and their milk decreases, or he commits an offense against two burgeoning breasts and fractures them, or a disease occurs in them, a judicial assessment (hukuma) is due for the blemish [that he caused to them] (2).

Section: As for the breasts of a man, which are the pectorals (thanduwatan), the blood money is also due for them (3). Ishaq held this view, and it was narrated as a position of al-Shafi'i. Al-Nakha'i, Malik, the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and Ibn al-Mundhir said: A judicial assessment (hukuma) is due for them. This is the apparent view of the school of al-Shafi'i, because he has removed the beauty without benefit, so the blood money is not due, just as if he destroyed a blind eye or a paralyzed hand. Al-Zuhri said: For the nipple of a man, five camels are due. It is narrated from Zayd ibn Thabit that in them is one-eighth of the blood money (4). Our argument is that whatever the blood money is due for in the case of a woman, it is due for in the case of a man, just like the two hands and the rest of the limbs. This is because they are two limbs of the body, through which beauty is achieved, and there are no other limbs of their type in the body, so the blood money is due for them, like the hands. Also, because he has removed the beauty [entirely], the blood money is due, like the four types of hair according to Abu Hanifa, and like the ears of a deaf person and the nose of one who has lost the sense of smell according to everyone. It differs from the blind eye, because there is no complete beauty in it, and because it is an organ from which the part for which blood money is due has been lost, so its blood money was not completed, unlike the two hands if they are paralyzed, which is different from our issue.