How is compensation determined when fungible items are destroyed?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Usurpation
Primary text
If the destroyed item consists of parts that are essentially identical and vary only slightly in description, such as grains or oils, the repayment must be in kind (mithl). This is because the exact equivalent is closer to the original than its monetary value, matching it in form, observable reality, and meaning, whereas value is based on conjecture and scholarly effort. The means of direct observation takes precedence over conjecture, similar to how explicit text is preferred over analogy. Therefore, repayment in kind is required for items where the equivalent can be precisely ascertained through observation.
Supporting text
For items whose qualities are not uniform, which generally includes things other than measured (Mekil) or weighed (Mawzoon) goods, the compensation due is the monetary value (Qeemah), according to the majority of scholars. Al-Anbari, however, held that in every instance, repayment must be in kind, citing a hadith where the Prophet peace be upon him instructed a woman who broke a vessel to replace it with an identical vessel and the food with identical food. Another hadith regarding a broken serving dish resulted in the breaker's dish being held as collateral until an identical one was provided. Furthermore, the Prophet peace be upon him borrowed and returned a camel of the same type, suggesting the principle of like-for-like.