and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade wasting wealth. The schools of Ahmad and Mālik do, however, permit financial penalties, sometimes through confiscation and sometimes through destruction. This is Ahmad’s position concerning the belongings of someone who misappropriates war booty, and the position of Ahmad and those Mālikīs who share his view concerning wine vessels, the premises of wine sellers, and other such things. Punishment through the destruction of certain property in some circumstances is comparable to punishment through taking certain lives in some circumstances.

This is permissible when making an example of the offender serves the benefit for which such punishment was prescribed, as with taking a life or a limb. Just as taking a life is forbidden except in retribution for a life or for spreading corruption—as Allah Most High says:

“Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption in the land”

—and as the angels said:

“Will You place in it someone who will spread corruption and shed blood?”

—so too is destroying property permissible only as retaliation or because of its owner’s wrongdoing. Thus, we have permitted destroying the buildings and plantations of those at war with us in retaliation for their doing the same to us, without disagreement. We have likewise permitted what we have permitted on account of its owner’s wrongdoing.

For this reason, I know of no one who has said that legally protected property whose owner is unknown should be destroyed. Such conduct is merely reported of certain mistaken individuals seeking to practise religious scrupulousness: one cast some of his wealth into the sea, or abandoned it on land, and the like. In such people one finds good intentions and sincere scrupulousness, but not sound conduct.

As for withholding it permanently, forever, with no anticipated endpoint—indeed, knowing that there is no