Tirmidhi

Explanation: 1؎ :
A "muwaddiha" is a wound through which the bone becomes exposed.

(1) Determining the exact benefit of any limb is a very difficult task because a single limb serves multiple functions. For example, the front teeth are used for cutting as well as, in times of need, for gripping. Similarly, they are also an adornment of the face. Therefore, it cannot be said that the molars have a greater share in eating and the teeth have less, so the blood money (diyah) for the molars should be more. In other words, only Allah Ta’ala knows the full benefit of the limbs; therefore, the diyah that the Shari’ah has prescribed is the correct one. There should be no debate about this.

(2) If a person breaks all of someone’s teeth, what will be the amount of diyah? The majority of scholars hold the view that the diyah for each tooth is five camels, so that if a person breaks thirty-two teeth, he will have to pay one hundred and sixty (160) camels as diyah. Molars and teeth are equal in this regard. Their evidence is the aforementioned hadith. However, a group of scholars holds the view that for twelve teeth, there will be five camels each, and for the remaining twenty molars, there will be one camel each. And another opinion is that for the remaining molars, there will be two camels each. Their evidence is a ruling of Umar radi Allahu anhu, in which he prescribed one camel as diyah for each molar. Furthermore, if the first opinion is acted upon, the diyah will exceed the diyah for life itself. Ibn Abd al-Barr rahimahullah states that as far as the ruling of Umar radi Allahu anhu is concerned, it is also narrated from him that teeth and molars are equal, so the fatwa of his that is in accordance with the marfu’ hadith will be acted upon. And it is narrated from Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu that if Umar radi Allahu anhu had known of the marfu’ hadith, he too would have ruled five camels for each molar. As for the other point, that in this way the diyah would exceed the diyah for life, this is neither against analogy nor against principles; rather, it is in complete accordance with the principles, that molars are to be analogized with teeth. Furthermore, according to the scholars, the term “asnan” (teeth) also applies to “adras” (molars). Then, there are other possible scenarios in which the diyah exceeds the diyah for life, for example: if a person’s eye is gouged out and both hands are cut off, then the diyah will exceed the diyah for life. See also: (al-Istidhkar, by Ibn Abd al-Barr: 25/146-148). In our view, the position of the majority of scholars is the preferred one. And Allah knows best.

If the skin and flesh are cut to the extent that the bone becomes visible, but the bone itself is not harmed, then such a wound is called "mudhihah" in the Arabic language. This wound is minor and heals quickly; therefore, its blood money (diyah) is also minor, that is, only five camels have been prescribed. If the wound is less than this, the court may determine any diyah that is less than five camels. Diyah has been prescribed in view of the dignity of humanity, so that a person, especially a Muslim, is not considered insignificant. Even if he suffers a mere scratch, a penalty and compensation will still be applicable. Some jurists have stipulated five camels as diyah for this mudhihah if it occurs on the head or face. For the rest of the body, the diyah for mudhihah is left to the discretion of the court, and it has been said that it will be less than five camels, because the face is the most honored limb, and thus striking it is a greater offense. However, this specification is not found in any hadith.

(1) Muhammad bin Bakkar bin Bilal has opposed Hakam bin Musa. And that is in this way: Hakam bin Musa, while narrating this narration, said: "Haddathana Yahya bin Hamzah 'an Sulayman bin Dawud qala: Haddathani az-Zuhri," whereas when Muhammad bin Bakkar bin Bilal narrated this narration, he said: "Haddathana Yahya qala haddathana Sulayman bin Arqam qala haddathani az-Zuhri." The point is that Hakam bin Musa narrated from Sulayman bin Dawud, the teacher of Yahya bin Hamzah, while Muhammad bin Bakkar bin Bilal narrated this same narration from Sulayman bin Arqam, the teacher of Yahya, as has been mentioned in the following narration. And Allah knows best.

(2) This narration is weak in its chain of transmission; however, most of its contents are mentioned in other authentic ahadith, some of which have already passed, and the details of the related rulings and issues have also been explained.

Benefits and Issues:
Al-Imam Ibn Athir rahimahullah said:
“A ‘mudiha’ is a wound through which the whiteness of the bone becomes visible.
The ‘mudiha’ for which the compensation is five camels is that which occurs on the head or face.
If a ‘mudiha’ wound is inflicted on any other limb, then an appropriate monetary compensation is due for it.” (Al-Nihayah, under the root word: wadaḥ)

Takhrij:
«أخرجه أبوداود، الديات، باب ديات الأعضاء، حديث"4566، والترمذي، الديات، حديث:1390، والنسائي، القسامة، حديث:4856، وابن ماجه، الديات، حديث:2655، وأحمد:2 /179، 189، 207، 215.»©Explanation:
During a fight, if due to an injury or wound, the flesh separates from the bone and the bone becomes clearly exposed but is not broken, then in such a case, the position of the Shafi'is, Hanafis, and a large group of the Companions is that it is obligatory to pay a compensation (diyah) of five camels. Whereas, if any one finger of the hand or foot is lost, the compensation is ten camels, as has been mentioned previously.