trees or herbage: did he omit it for the sake of brevity, or because he restricted himself to mentioning only what is prohibited?

The answer is that, since the author—may Allah have mercy on him—was among the followers of Imam Ahmad, from the Hanbalis, it appears that he omitted it for the sake of brevity, not because he intended to restrict the ruling.

Yet it is possible that he omitted it by way of restriction; that is, the prohibition is confined to cutting and mowing, with no compensation due.

The scholars differed over this issue. Some scholars held that no compensation is due for these trees or herbage. This is the position of Malik, Ibn al-Mundhir, and a group of scholars.

This is the correct view, because there is no authentic evidence in the sunnah establishing that compensation is obligatory in such cases. What has been reported from some of the Companions (1) may have been by way of discretionary punishment: they considered that one who cut these trees should be penalized, based on the permissibility of imposing discretionary financial penalties. Had compensation been obligatory, the Prophet ﷺ would have made it clear, for it is inconceivable that he would leave his ummah without clarification of what was binding upon them. With the death of the Prophet ﷺ, legislation came to an end.

This is not a matter of analogy such that it might be said: perhaps it may be analogized to game, for there is a difference here between game and trees. Trees grow, but they do not possess the life found in game animals. Thus, if a person cuts down a tree or one of its branches, or mows herbage, he incurs sin, but no compensation is due from him, whether little or much.