one of the two reports from him—said: “These are punishments affecting property, and they have been abrogated.”

The others reply: “Nothing has abrogated this (1), for abrogation can occur (2) only through a later text that conflicts with the earlier one, and nothing of the sort has been reported (3). Rather, punishments affecting property, like bodily punishments, are to be applied in the manner prescribed by the Law. Indeed, there is even greater reason to employ them, for harm to bodies and limbs is graver than damage to property. If punishments of the former kind are prescribed, then those of the latter kind are prescribed all the more so.”

They also disagreed over retaliation in matters of property. If someone tears (4) another person’s garment, may the latter tear (5) a comparable garment belonging to the offender, thereby damaging his property just as he damaged his? There are two views on this, both transmitted from Ahmad.

Those who hold that this is impermissible argue that it constitutes harm (6). Those who hold that it is permissible say: “The taking of life or limb causes far graver harm, yet it is permitted when carried out as an act of justice and retaliation because it restrains aggression [and brings solace to the wronged person] (7).”

Those who prohibit it say: “If retaliation had not been prescribed in cases involving human life, people would not have been deterred (8). If a murderer knew that he would not be put to death but would merely pay blood money, he would go ahead (9) and kill, then pay (10) the blood money.”