the schools of al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad. Al-Shāfi‘ī explicitly stated that if someone demolishes another’s house, he must rebuild it as it was, thus requiring compensation in kind. A similar position concerning animals has also been reported from him. Likewise, according to the well-known position reported from Ahmad, a man deceived into believing a slave woman was free must compensate for his children with equivalent slaves. Ahmad also explicitly stated that whoever borrows an animal must return its equivalent.

The account of David and Solomon falls under this heading. David, peace be upon him, awarded the owners of the field in which the people’s sheep had grazed at night compensation based on its value, giving them the livestock in lieu of that sum. Solomon, peace be upon him, ordered the livestock owners to restore the field to its former condition, while the field owners were to benefit from the livestock in compensation for the benefit they had lost from their field.

Al-Zuhrī gave ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz a ruling to this effect when some members of the Umayyad family wrongfully uprooted the trees of an orchard belonging to him. When asked what was owed for this, he replied:

“He must replant it as it was.”

He was told:

“Rabī‘ah and Abū al-Zinād have said that its value must be paid.”

Al-Zuhrī then spoke about them in terms whose substance was that they had contradicted the Sunnah.

There is no doubt that compensating for property with something of the same kind, while taking its value into account, is closer to justice than compensating for it with something of a different kind—namely, dirhams and dinars—while taking its value into account. Value is considered in both cases, but sameness of kind is preserved in only one. People’s purposes undoubtedly depend on the kind of property itself. Otherwise, what use are dirhams to someone who wants a book, a horse, or an orchard?

If it is said, “He can buy its equivalent with them,” the answer is: “The wrongdoer who deprived him of his property should be the one required to provide him with the equivalent of what he deprived him of, or a counterpart to the property he damaged.”