What is the financial obligation if intercourse with Iffa also causes urinary incontinence?

Primary text

If her urine becomes perpetually flowing (Istilqaq) as a result, he is liable for one Diyah without any addition. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. The evidence is that he damaged a single organ, and only its benefits were lost, so he is not liable for more than a single Diyah, similar to cutting his tongue, which causes loss of taste and speech. The opposing view is invalid because if two benefits were to mandate two Diyahs, then the incontinence, which mandates a Diyah on its own, combined with Iffa (which mandates a Diyah separately according to that view), would necessitate two Diyahs, which was not held; rather, they only mandated a governmental assessment (Hukuma), and its prerequisite is absent, as we know of no scholar who mandated a governmental assessment for Iffa alone.