as when he has crushed his victim’s head. Thus, “the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, crushed the head of the Jew who had crushed the girl’s head.” This more fully achieves justice than killing him with a sword-blow to the neck. When retaliation is not possible, recourse is made to blood money, which serves as a substitute because equivalent retaliation is impossible.

If someone destroys another person’s property—as when a borrowed item perishes while in his possession—he must provide its equivalent if one exists. If an equivalent cannot be obtained, its monetary value—in dirhams and dinars—serves as a substitute. Hence, requiring an equivalent for everything, insofar as possible and with due regard for its value, comes closer to justice than requiring monetary compensation rather than an equivalent. The story of David and Solomon concerned this matter.

We have discussed all these subjects at length elsewhere; the purpose here is merely to draw attention to them. Accordingly, permitting ‘arāyā sales on the basis of estimated quantities, because of need when sale by measured volume is not possible, accords with the principles of the Sharia. Moreover, it is established by the authentic Sunnah. This is the position of the scholars of Medina and the scholars of hadith. Mālik also permitted estimation in comparable circumstances because of need. This is sound understanding of the law in its truest sense.

The position of the scholars of Medina and those who agree with them, such as al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad, concerning compensation for hunted game is that an animal equivalent in physical form must be provided, as established by the Sunnah and the judgments of the Companions. The Sunan collections report that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ruled that a ram was due for a hyena