been cooked through, and adulterated food (that is, food mixed with inferior material which the buyer represents as good), and the like—may be given in charity to the poor, since this is a form of destroying it.

If ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb destroyed milk diluted for sale, then giving it in charity is permissible with even greater reason. This punishes the adulterator and deters him from repeating the offence, while allowing the poor to benefit from it is more useful than destroying it. ʿUmar destroyed it because he provided people with sufficient means through stipends, so the poor in Medina under his rule were either few or nonexistent. For this reason, a group of scholars permitted giving it in charity and disapproved of destroying it.

Al-Mudawwana reports from Mālik ibn Anas that ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb used to pour adulterated milk onto the ground to discipline its owner. According to Ibn al-Qāsim’s transmission, Mālik disapproved of this and held that it should be given in charity. Scholars differ, however, over whether a small amount should be given in charity; there are two views.

Ashhab also transmitted from Mālik that financial punishments are prohibited, reporting him as saying: “No sin makes a person’s property lawful to take, even if he has killed someone.” The former view, however, is more widely reported from him. He approved of giving adulterated milk in charity: this punishes the adulterator by depriving him of it and benefits the needy by giving it to them, rather than pouring it away.

Mālik was asked, “Do you regard saffron and musk in the same way?”

He replied, “How similar they are to that! If the adulteration is his doing, it is like the milk.”

Ibn al-Qāsim said, “This applies to a small amount of it. But as for