for the benefit lost from the time the cultivated land was destroyed until it was restored. Al-Zuhrī gave this same ruling to ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz concerning someone who had destroyed trees belonging to him, saying: “He must replant them until they are restored to their former condition.” It was reported that Rabīʿah and Abū al-Zinād said, “He is liable for their value,” and al-Zuhrī spoke harshly of them.
This is what the evidence requires, for the obligation is to compensate for destroyed property with its equivalent as far as possible. Allah Most High says:
“The recompense for an evil is an evil like it.”
And He says:
“So whoever transgresses against you, transgress against him in the same measure as he transgressed against you.”
And He says:
“If you retaliate, then retaliate with the like of what you have suffered.”
And He says:
“Violations of sacred limits are subject to retribution.”
If someone destroys money, grain, or the like, compensation with an equivalent is possible. But if the destroyed property consists of clothing, vessels, or animals, an equivalent in every respect may be unobtainable.
There are therefore two alternatives: either he compensates for it by paying its value in dirhams, which differ from the destroyed property in kind and characteristics but equal it in monetary value; or he compensates for it with clothing of the same kind, vessels of the same kind, or animals of the same kind, taking value into account as far as possible, so that the replacement equals the destroyed property in value. In the latter case, monetary value is equal, just as with payment in money, but there is the additional advantage of correspondence in kind and characteristics. This therefore provides a closer equivalent than monetary compensation. Whatever provides a closer equivalent is more just, and must therefore be awarded when an equivalent in every respect is unobtainable.
A parallel to this is what is established by the Sunnah and the agreement of the Companions concerning retaliation for a slap