“This is unlike property: the person who destroyed it is made to provide the equivalent of what he destroyed, and the deterrent purpose of retaliation is thereby achieved. As for destroying that equivalent, the resulting harm (1) falls upon the person whose property was destroyed, for both his property and the compensation due for it are lost to him.”

The other side replies: “Rather, it affords a measure of (2) solace to the wronged person. Moreover, if retaliation (3) against the offender can be exacted only by destroying his property, then this (4) is even more plainly permissible, because (5) retaliation is just, and ‘The recompense of an evil deed is an evil deed like it.’ Thus, if someone destroys another’s property and retaliation (6) against him can be exacted only by destroying his own property, that is permissible.”

For this reason, the scholars agreed that it is permissible to destroy trees and crops belonging to the disbelievers when they do the same to us, or when they cannot (7) be overcome except by doing so. As for whether this is permissible in the absence of those circumstances, there is a well-known disagreement (8). Two reports on the matter are transmitted from Ahmad, while permissibility is the position of al-Shāfi‘i and others.

[The point here] (9) is that musical instruments are prohibited according to the four imams, and no disagreement among them concerning this has been reported (10). However, later Khurāsānī scholars of al-Shāfi‘i’s school mentioned two positions on the issue, though the correct position is that they are prohibited. As for