His statement, “or destroys something inviolable,” includes both small and great things, animals and inanimate objects. It also includes what is done deliberately and what is done unintentionally. The difference between one who acts deliberately and one who does not is that the former is sinful, whereas the latter is not; however, a person’s right is not waived, and he must therefore provide compensation.

Thus, if someone destroys property thinking that it is his own, only to discover that it belongs to someone else, he must compensate for it, because he has destroyed something inviolable. If he says, “Allah says, ‘Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake’” [al-Baqarah 2:286], we say: Yes, Allah has said this, but it applies only to Allah’s right. As for a person’s right, compensation remains due.

If a man in a state of ihram kills game that belongs to someone else out of ignorance or forgetfulness, he must compensate its owner, but no expiation is due from him. The difference is that the expiation is a right due to Allah Most High, whereas compensation is a right due to a person. But if he destroys it deliberately while it is owned by someone else, two compensations are binding upon him:

The first compensation is for the person, and the second is the expiation, which is a right due to Allah.

Thus, everyone who destroys something inviolable must compensate for it, whether he knew or was ignorant, forgot or remembered, acted deliberately or mistakenly. Compensation is due in every case, whether the inviolable property is of little or great value.

His statement, “or opens a cage”: a cage is a container in which birds are kept. If he opens the cage and the bird flies away, he must compensate for it, because he is an indirect cause; and where there is no direct agent alongside the indirect cause, the indirect cause is liable for compensation.