[as a slave, so that it is possible to appraise him], and we treat the slave as the base (asl) for the free person in matters where there is no fixed amount, and the free person as the base for the slave in matters where there is a fixed amount.

1516- Issue: He said: (Based on this, what increases or decreases of the discretionary compensation is valid, unless the injury is to the head or face, in which case it is easier than that which is fixed; thus, it shall not exceed the indemnity of the fixed-amount injury.)

This means if the injury decreased him by more than one-tenth of his value, then more than one-tenth of his blood money is due. And if it decreased him by less than one-tenth, for instance, if it decreased him by one-half of one-tenth of his value, then one-half of one-tenth of his blood money is due, unless he inflicted a wound on him less than the mudihah, and the indemnity of the wound through discretionary compensation reached more than the indemnity of the mudihah; the excess is not due. If he wounded him on his face with a simhaq wound, and it decreased him by one-tenth of his value, the requirement of the discretionary compensation would be the obligation of ten camels, while the blood money for the mudihah is five. Here, the error of the appraiser is known; because if the wound had been a mudihah, it would not have exceeded five, [so that there should not be a requirement for more than five for a part of it] is more appropriate. This is the position of the majority of scholars, and it is the view of al-Shafi'i and the proponents of opinion (ashab al-ra'y). It was related from Malik that what the discretionary compensation determines is due, whatever it may be; because it is a wound for which there is no fixed amount, so that which it decreased is due, just as if it were in the rest of the body. Our position is that it is a part of the mudihah; because if he had inflicted a mudihah, he would have severed what this wound severed, and it is not permissible for there to be due for a part of the thing more than what is due for the whole of it. Furthermore, the harm in the mudihah is greater, the disfigurement is more severe, and the location is the same, so since the indemnity of the mudihah does not exceed five, this serves as an alert that what is less than it should not exceed it. As for the rest of the body, what has a fixed amount, such as limbs, known bones, and the penetrating wound (ja'ifah), the wound to a bone shall not exceed its blood money. An example of this is if he wounded a fingertip and its indemnity through discretionary compensation reached five camels, then it is reduced to the blood money of the fingertip. And if he committed an injury to his interior less than the penetrating wound, it shall not exceed the indemnity of the penetrating wound. And what is not like that, what the discretionary compensation determines is due, because the location is different. If it is said: It has become due in some parts of the body more than what is due in its entirety, and it has become due for the functions of the tongue more than what is due for it? We say: The blood money for the person (nafs) is only due as a substitute for the soul, and the limbs are not parts of it, unlike our issue here. This was mentioned by al-Qadi. The speech of al-Khiraqi allows for the interpretation that the restriction on exceeding the amount is specific to the head and face, due to his saying: "unless the injury is to the head or face, in which case it shall not exceed the indemnity of the fixed-amount injury."