Accordingly, he ﷺ ordered that the partner’s share be appraised, for it had been rendered nonexistent by the act of manumission; he did not require a like-for-like replacement.

A group of scholars—including Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim—hold that anything usurped must be indemnified by an item of the same kind, whether it is sold by measure, by weight, or otherwise, whenever that is feasible. One turns to its market value only if an identical replacement is unavailable or impossible. They support this with several proofs, among them the Almighty’s words: “So give those whose wives have gone away the like of what they had spent” (Q 60:11).

They also cite the hadith before us, which obliges compensating the broken bowl with another of its kind, as well as his ﷺ statement, “A vessel for a vessel.” Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn remarked that qiṣāṣ (retaliatory justice) has been legislated for life and limbs, which are of greater worth than property. He added that settling property claims with something of the same genus is closer to perfect justice than settling them with a different genus, namely silver dirhams or gold dinars.

Our teacher ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī preferred this view too; it is one of the narrations transmitted within the Hanbalī school, may Allah have mercy on him. Ibn Mūsā stated that this narration is in fact the authoritative position of the madhhab.