And Malik said: If it is on the nose or the lower jaw, then a government (hukumah - discretionary compensation) is due, because it is far from the brain, so it resembles a mudiha on the rest of the body. Our position is the generality of the hadiths and the statement of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them: "The mudiha on the head and the face is equal." And because it is a mudiha, its compensation is five camels, like other instances they have conceded. There is no consideration for the extent of the disfigurement, as evidenced by the equality between a small [wound] and a large one. What they have mentioned regarding Malik is incorrect; for a mudiha on the chest is more harmful and closer to the heart, yet no fixed amount is determined for it. It has been narrated from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, that he said: "A mudiha on the face is more deserving of an increase in its blood money." This does not mean that a greater amount is mandatory for it—and Allah knows best—but rather it means it is more worthy of the imposition of blood money. For if five camels are mandatory for a mudiha on the head—despite the minor disfigurement and it being covered by hair and head covering—then it is even more appropriate that this be mandatory for the face, which is visible, the gathering place of beauty, and the hallmark of attractiveness. Interpreting Ahmad's statement this way is better than interpreting it in a manner that contradicts the report (khabar), the tradition (athar), the opinion of the majority of scholars, and his own resort to estimation without a textual stipulation (tawqif) or valid analogy (qiyas).

Section: The compensation for a mudiha is mandatory regardless of whether it is small or large, or whether it is exposed or covered by hair, because the term 'mudiha' encompasses all of these. The limit of a mudiha is that which reaches the bone, even if it is to the extent of a needle. Ibn al-Qasim and the Qadi mentioned this. If he inflicts a wound on his head, part of which is a mudiha and part of which is less than a mudiha, he is not liable for more than the compensation for a mudiha, because if he had made the entire wound a mudiha, he would not be liable for more than the compensation for a mudiha; therefore, that he is not liable for more than that if only part of it is an exposure is even more appropriate. Likewise, if he inflicts a wound that is partly a hashimah (fracture) and the rest of it is less than that, he is not liable for more than the compensation of a hashimah.