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." And as for the statement of al-Khiraqi: "And it is forbidden to interfere with them regarding that which..."