Section: If he wounds his thigh and drags the knife until it reaches the hip, and inflicts a ja'ifah (deep wound) in it, or wounds the shoulder and drags the knife until it reaches the chest, and inflicts a ja'ifah in it, then upon him is the blood money for a ja'ifah and a hukuma (discretionary assessment) for the wounds; because the wounds are in a location other than that of the ja'ifah, so they are distinct in terms of liability, just as if he had inflicted a mudihah (a wound exposing the bone) on his head and dragged the knife until it reached the nape of the neck, for he would be obligated to pay the blood money for a mudihah and a hukuma for the wound at the nape.

Section: If he inserts an iron rod, a piece of wood, or his hand into the rectum of a person and pierces a barrier in the interior, then upon him is a hukuma, and he is not obligated to pay the blood money for a ja'ifah; because a ja'ifah is that which pierces from the exterior into the interior cavity, and this is contrary to that. Likewise, if he inserts a knife into the ja'ifah of a person and pierces something in the interior, it is not a ja'ifah, due to what we have mentioned.

1509 - Issue: He said: (If he wounds him in his interior, and it exits from the other side, then they are two ja'ifahs).

This is the opinion of most scholars; among them are 'Ata', Mujahid, Qatada, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the Ashab al-Ra'y (the Hanafi school). Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: I do not know of any disagreement among them regarding this. It was narrated from some of the Shafi'i scholars that he said: It is a single ja'ifah. It was also narrated from Abu Hanifah; because the ja'ifah is that which passes from the exterior of the body to the interior, and this second [opening] merely passes from the interior to the exterior. Our evidence is what Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab narrated, that a man shot another man with an arrow and it passed through him, so Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, decreed two-thirds of the blood money. There is no one who disagreed with him, so it is considered a consensus (ijma'). Sa'id ibn Mansur recorded it in his Sunan. And he narrated from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, decreed regarding the ja'ifah, when it penetrates the interior, the blood money of two ja'ifahs, because it penetrated from two places, so it is two ja'ifahs just as if he had penetrated it with two strikes.

Section: If he inserts his finger into the private part of a virgin and causes the loss of her virginity, it is not a ja'ifah, because that is not an interior cavity.

1510 - Issue: He said: (And whoever has intercourse with his wife while she is young, and rips her [fataqaha], he is obligated to pay one-third of the blood money).

The meaning of 'fataq' is the piercing of the area between the urinary tract and the passage of semen. It is also said: Rather, its meaning is the piercing of the area between the vagina and the anus, except that this is far-fetched, because it is unlikely that intercourse would remove the barrier between them, for it is a [thick] barrier.