for another value, because the value he took was entitled due to a cause that was in the hands of the usurper, thus it was part of his liability. If the slave were a deposit (wadi'a) and he committed a crime that consumed his value, then the depositor killed him after that, he would be liable for his value, and the indemnity of the crime would attach to it. Thus, when the claimant of the crime takes it, he does not seek recourse against the depositor; because he (the depositor) committed an act, and it is not a liability upon him. If a slave committed a crime while in the hands of his master that consumed his value, then a usurper usurped him and he committed a crime while in his (the usurper's) hands that consumed his value, he is sold for both crimes and his price is divided between them. The owner of the slave seeks recourse against the usurper for what the second party took from him, because the crime occurred in his possession, and the person injured first had the right to take him rather than the second; because what the owner takes from the usurper is a substitute for what the injured party took second, so his right does not attach to it, while the right of the first one attaches to it; because it is a substitute for the value of the perpetrator and there is no competition in it. If this slave dies in the hands of the usurper, he is liable for his value, which is divided between them, and the owner seeks recourse against the usurper for half of the value; because he is a guarantor for the second crime, and it is for the first injured party to take it, for what we have mentioned.

870 - Issue: He said: "Whoever destroys wine or a pig for a Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim), there is no liability upon him, and it is forbidden to interfere with them regarding that which they do not display."

The totality of this is that the compensation for wine and pig is not mandatory, whether the destroyer is a Muslim or a Dhimmi, for a Muslim or a Dhimmi. Ahmad specified this in a narration by Abu al-Harith, regarding a man who spills an intoxicant for a Muslim, or wine for a Dhimmi, that there is no liability upon him. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: Their compensation is mandatory if he destroyed them for a Dhimmi. Abu Hanifa said: If he was a Muslim, it is by its value, and if he was a Dhimmi, it is by its equivalent (mithl); because the contract of Dhimma, when it protects an entity, makes it valuable (taqwim), like the person of a human being. It has protected the wine of a Dhimmi, evidenced by the fact that the Muslim is prevented from destroying it, so it is mandatory that he assess its value. Also, because it is wealth for them, which they treat as property, evidenced by what was narrated from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that his agent wrote to him: "The people of the Dhimma pass by the tithe-collector (al-'ashir) with wines." Umar wrote to him: "Allow them to sell it, and take from them a tithe of its price." And since it is wealth for them, its compensation is mandatory, like the rest of their property. To us (the Hanbalis), Jabir narrated that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Beware! Allah and His Messenger have prohibited the sale of wine, dead animals (mayta), pigs, and idols." This is unanimously agreed upon as authentic. Whatever its sale is prohibited not for its sanctity, its value is not mandatory, like dead animals. Furthermore, whatever is not a liability in the case of a Muslim is not a liability in the case of a Dhimmi, like an apostate. Also, because it has no recognized value (ghayr mutaqawwama), it is not compensated, like dead animals. The proof that it has no recognized value in the case of a Muslim applies similarly to the case of a Dhimmi, as its prohibition is established for both of them, and the address of prohibitions is directed at both; thus, what is established for one of them is established for the other. We do not concede that it is protected; rather, whenever it is displayed, its spilling becomes lawful. Even if it were protected, it would not necessitate assigning it a value; for the women and children of the hostile territories (harbiyyun) are protected but have no recognized value. Their claim that "it is wealth for them" is refuted by the case of an apostate slave, for he is wealth for them (according to them). As for the hadith of Umar, it is interpreted as him wanting to refrain from interfering with them, and he only ordered taking a tithe of their prices because when they trade and take possession, we judge them as having ownership and do not annul it, and naming them 'prices' is metaphorical, just as Allah Almighty named the price of Joseph a price, saying: "And they sold him for a cheap price."