and the owner’s land; in that case, the rent should be divided equally between them. For otherwise, we would be giving the owner more than the rent of the land. The rent for vacant land might, for example, be ten thousand a year—for use as storage yards, parking lots, or the like. But if it is built upon, its rent may be, for example, one hundred thousand a year. Yet where did we get the one hundred thousand a year? From the usurper’s construction and from the owner’s land. Thus, if someone were to say that both the usurper and the owner should each have a share of the rent, that would be sound.

If he usurps a hunting animal, a slave, or a horse, and thereby acquires game, it belongs to its owner.

His statement, “If he usurps a hunting animal, a slave, or a horse, and thereby acquires game, it belongs to its owner”: these issues are based on the Prophet’s statement, “An unjustly established root has no right.” (1) If someone usurps a hunting animal—the term refers to an animal that catches prey, such as a hunting dog or a bird of prey, which is called a hunting animal—Allah says: “And what you have trained of hunting animals, teaching them as Allah has taught you” [al-Ma'idah: 4]. Thus, if a person usurps a hunting dog and hunts with it, the game belongs to the dog’s owner, because the dog belongs to him; the usurper’s only role was to set it upon the prey, whereupon it caught it.

His statement, “or a slave”: if he usurps a slave and tells him, “Go and hunt birds for us; hunt wild donkeys for us; hunt gazelles for us,” and the slave goes and hunts them, then the game belongs to the owner, because it is the earning of his property and therefore belongs to him.

His statement, “or a horse”: a horse does not itself hunt. The slave hunts, and the hunting animal hunts, but a horse does not hunt; rather, prey is hunted while riding it,