milk with water for sale,” as distinct from mixing it for drinking. Mixing milk with water for drinking is permissible, but doing so for sale is not, even if the buyer knows that it has been mixed with water. The buyer does not know the proportion of the mixture, so what is being sold remains undetermined, introducing uncertainty into the transaction. The same applies to all adulterated goods whose degree of adulteration is unknown: selling them, or manufacturing them for someone who will sell them, is prohibited. This also applies to mixing flax tow with white wool, and to any adulteration of food, clothing, or other goods when the degree of adulteration is unknown.

A number of scholars among the followers of Mālik, Ahmad, and others have ruled that someone who does this may be punished by having the adulterated garment torn apart or the adulterated food given away in charity. Similarly, the Prophet slit open wine containers and broke its jars, and ‘Umar and ‘Alī—may Allah be pleased with them both—ordered that premises where wine was sold be burned down. Ahmad and others expressly stated this ruling. Likewise,

“the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar to burn the two garments dyed with safflower.”

Muslim narrated this in his Sahīh. Similarly, Moses, peace be upon him, burned the calf rather than returning it to its owners, and instruments of amusement are broken. There are numerous comparable examples. These rest on the principle that penalties affecting property are to be applied wherever Islamic law prescribes them, just like corporal punishments.

Some scholars have claimed that this has been abrogated, but they have no evidence whatsoever for that claim. Just as a person may be put to death for his wickedness, so too property in which there exists