A similar example is what ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb did when he saw a man who had diluted milk with water for sale: he poured it away. This is authentically reported from ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him. A group of jurists who accepted this principle issued rulings accordingly, based on the report that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “forbade diluting milk with water for sale.” This differs from mixing it with water for drinking, because once it is mixed, the buyer cannot tell how much is milk and how much is water. Thus, ʿUmar destroyed it.

A comparable case is the ruling issued by a group of jurists who accepted this principle permitting the destruction of fraudulently manufactured goods. For example, garments woven poorly may be torn up and burned. Likewise, when ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb saw Ibn al-Zubayr wearing a silk garment, he tore it while the boy was wearing it. Al-Zubayr said, “You have frightened the boy!” He replied, “Do not clothe them in silk.” Another example is “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar’s burning of his safflower-dyed garment at the command of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”

This is comparable to destroying the part of the body through which the sin was committed: the thief’s hand is amputated, and the brigand’s hand and foot are amputated. Similarly, destroying the object involved in a wrongful act serves to deter a return to that wrongdoing. Such destruction is not obligatory in every case. Rather, if retaining the object entails no harm, it may also be spared, either for Allah’s sake or to be given in charity. On this basis, a group of scholars ruled that adulterated foods, including bread, melons, and roasted meat—such as bread and food that has not