prohibited from being destroyed due to the sanctity of the Sanctuary, so it is subject to compensation (daman), just like game. This differs from the state of ihram, for a pilgrim in ihram is not prohibited from cutting trees in the region outside the Sanctuary (hill), nor from [harvesting] crops in the Sanctuary. Once this is established, [it is determined that] one compensates for a large tree with a cow, a small one with a sheep, grass with its value, and a branch with whatever its value has diminished. Al-Shafi'i held this view. The scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: One compensates for everything with its value because there is no specified amount for it, so it is like grass. Our evidence is the statement of Ibn 'Abbas and 'Ata', and because it is one of the two types of things whose destruction is prohibited, therefore it has a specified compensation like game. If one cuts a branch or grass, and it subsequently regenerates, it is possible that the requirement for compensation ceases, just as if one wounds game and it heals, or cuts a human's hair and it grows back; it is also possible that one remains liable for it because the second [growth] is not the original one.

Section: Whoever pulls out a tree from the Sanctuary and replants it in another place, and it dies, is liable for it because he destroyed it. If he replants it in a place within the Sanctuary and it grows, he is not liable for it because he did not destroy it nor did he remove its sanctity. If he replants it in the region outside the Sanctuary (hill) and it grows, he must return it to the Sanctuary because he removed its sanctity. If returning it is impossible, or he returns it but it dies, he is liable for it. If someone else pulls it out from the region outside the Sanctuary, the Qadi said: The liability is upon the second person because he is the one who destroyed it. If it is said: Why is it not obligatory for the one who removed it, like game if one scares it out of the Sanctuary and a person kills it in the region outside, whereby the liability is on the one who scared it away? We say: A tree does not move by itself, and its sanctity is not removed by moving it; that is why its uprooter is obligated to return it. Game, however, is at one time in the Sanctuary and at another in the region outside; so whoever scares it away has caused the loss of its sanctity, and thus its penalty became incumbent upon him. This [tree], however, did not lose its sanctity by being moved, so the penalty is upon the one who destroyed it, because he destroyed a Sanctuary tree whose destruction is forbidden.

Section: If a tree is in the Sanctuary and its branch is in the region outside the Sanctuary (hill), the one who cuts it is liable for compensation because it is an appendage to its origin. If the tree is in the region outside the Sanctuary and its branch is in the Sanctuary, and one cuts it, there are two views: one of them is that there is no compensation, which is the position of the Qadi Abu Ya'la, because it is an appendage to its origin, like the case before it. The second is that one is liable for it; this was chosen by Ibn Abi Musa because it is in the Sanctuary. If part of the origin is in the region outside the Sanctuary and part of it is in the Sanctuary, one is liable for the branch in any case, whether