as specific wounds, distinct from injuries on the rest of the body. The designated head wounds are ten: five of them have a fixed indemnity (arsh), which we have already mentioned, and five have no fixed assessment. Al-Asma'i said: The first of them is the harisah, which is that which scratches the skin slightly. Meaning, it peels a small amount of the skin without blood appearing. From this is the saying: 'The launderer scratched (harasa) the garment,' meaning he tore it slightly. Then the bazilah, which is that from which blood descends—that is, flows. It is also called the damiyah (bleeding) and the dami'ah (tearing). Then the badi'ah, which is that which splits the flesh after the skin. Then the mutalahimah, which is that which has entered into the flesh, meaning it has penetrated it deeply, exceeding the badi'ah, but has not reached the simhaq. Then the simhaq, which is that which reaches a thin membrane above the bone; that membrane is called the simhaq, and the wounds reaching it are named after it. The people of Medina call it the maltah and the maltah, which is that which takes the entire flesh until it clears it. Then the mudihah, which is that which peels that membrane and reveals the luster (wadah) of the bone, meaning its whiteness; it is the first of the head wounds for which there is a fixed assessment. As for the five wounds preceding it, there is no fixed assessment for them according to the sound opinion in the madhhab of Ahmad, which is the opinion of the majority of jurists. This is narrated from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and the Ashab al-Ra'y (the proponents of rationalist jurisprudence). Another narration is reported from Ahmad that for the damiyah there is one camel, for the badi'ah two camels, for the mutalahimah three, and for the simhaq four camels, because this is reported from Zayd ibn Thabit. And it is reported from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the simhaq something similar. Sa'id narrated it from both of them. From Umar and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them, it is reported that for them there is half the indemnity of the mudihah. The sound opinion is the first one, because these are injuries for which no fixed assessment was provided in the Sharia, so the obligation for them is discretionary compensation (hukumah), like injuries to the body. It is reported from Makhul that he said: The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, adjudicated five camels for the mudihah, and he did not adjudicate anything for that which is less than it, and because nothing fixed by authoritative text has been established for them, nor is there a valid analogy for it, so it is necessary to revert to discretionary compensation, just like the harisah. Al-Qadi mentioned that whenever it is possible to assess these injuries by the mudihah—such as if there is a mudihah on the head of the injured party alongside it—this injury is estimated by it. If it is half the size, half the indemnity of the mudihah is due; if it is one-third the size, one-third of the indemnity is due. It continues this way unless the discretionary compensation exceeds that amount, in which case one is obligated to pay what the discretionary compensation determines. So if the injury is the size of half a mudihah, and its blemish decreases two-thirds of its value, we obligate two-thirds of the mudihah's indemnity. If the discretionary compensation is less than half, we obligate the half. We obligate the greater of what the discretionary compensation yields or its equivalent from the mudihah, because two obligating causes have combined: the blemish and its size relative to the mudihah, so the greater of the two is obligated due to the presence of its cause. The evidence for obligating a fixed amount is that this flesh has a fixed measure, so a portion of it carries a proportion of its blood money, like the nasal septum, the glans, the lip, and the eyelid. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. We do not know this to be the school of Ahmad, nor does his school entail it, and it is not valid because this is an injury for which discretionary compensation is due, so no fixed amount is obligatory for it, like injuries to the body. It is not valid to draw an analogy between this and what they mentioned, as discretionary compensation is not due in those cases, and we know of no equivalent for what they mentioned.

1514- Issue: He said: (And for those injuries for which there is no fixed assessment, and which are not analogous to those whose blood money is fixed, there is discretionary compensation).

As for that which has a fixed assessment, it is what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, provided an indemnity for, and clarified the amount of its blood money.