Is compensation due for the destruction of wine or swine?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Usurpation
Primary text
No compensation is due for the destruction of wine or swine, regardless of whether the destroyer is a Muslim or a Dhimmi, or whether the property belonged to a Muslim or a Dhimmi. Ahmad stipulated this in a narration from Abu al-Harith. This is also the position of Al-Shafi'i. The supporting evidence for this position includes the hadith narrated by Jaber, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) stated: 'Indeed, Allah and His Messenger have forbidden the sale of wine, dead carcasses, swine, and idols,' which is agreed upon as authentic. What is forbidden from sale due to its inherent prohibition does not necessitate compensation for its destruction, similar to a dead carcass. Furthermore, what is not guaranteed in relation to a Muslim is not guaranteed in relation to a Dhimmi, such as an apostate. They are not items of assessed value (mutqawwam) and thus not compensable, just like a dead carcass. The prohibition applies to both Muslims and Dhimmis; therefore, if it is not assessed for one, it is not assessed for the other.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa and Malik hold that compensation is due if wine or swine are destroyed belonging to a Dhimmi. Abu Hanifa argues that the covenant of protection (Dhimma) sanctifies certain items, like the human life, thus the wine of a Dhimmi must be valued, citing a narration from Umar that required taking the tenth of their sale price. The counterargument is that if they are considered property, they must be compensable like other property. This view is refuted by the hadith prohibiting the sale of wine, and because items not guaranteed for a Muslim (like a dead carcass) are not guaranteed for a Dhimmi (like an apostate). The counterargument also asserts that they are not assessed values, and if they are displayed publicly, their liquid status permits them to be spilled.