Section: Our colleagues did not differentiate between all animals in this issue. In my view, it is stronger that if the Muslims are unable to drive away and take what the disbelievers use in fighting—such as horses—it is permissible to hamstring and destroy them, because it is something whose delivery to the disbelievers by way of sale is forbidden, so leaving it to them without compensation is even more deserving of prohibition. If it is something that is suitable for food, then the Muslims may slaughter it and eat from it, whether in a state of need or otherwise. As for anything beyond these two categories, it is not permissible to destroy it, because it is mere corruption and destruction, and the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade the slaughtering of animals for other than food.

1672 - Issue; He said: "And he shall not cut their trees, nor shall he burn their crops, unless they are doing that in our land, in which case it shall be done to them so that they might desist."

The totality of this is that trees and crops are divided into three categories: The first is that for which the need arises to destroy it, such as that which is close to their fortresses and prevents their fighting, or they use it for cover from the Muslims, or it needs to be cut to widen a path, or to enable fighting, or to block a breach, or to repair a road, or for a siege engine screen, or otherwise, or they are doing this to us, so it is done to them so that they might desist. This is permissible, without any difference of opinion that we are aware of. The second is that which causes harm to the Muslims if cut, because they benefit from its remaining for their fodder, or they seek shade under it, or they eat from its fruit, or it is the case that no custom has established that between us and our enemy, so if we do it to them, they would do it to us. This is forbidden, because it involves harming the Muslims. [The third is what is beyond these two categories, of that which causes no harm to the Muslims], nor any benefit other than enraging the disbelievers and causing them harm. Regarding this, there are two narrations: One is that it is not permissible, due to the hadith of Abu Bakr and his will. It has been narrated in similar fashion as marfu' (attributed to the Prophet) to the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and because it contains pure destruction, so it is not permitted, like the hamstrung of an animal. This was stated by al-Awza'i, al-Layth, and Abu Thawr. The second narration is that it is permissible. This was stated by Malik,