and the hunter is the usurper, because he hunted it with his arrow or caught it by his own leap. The horse’s role is merely to run. Therefore, it should be distinguished from a hunting animal and a slave, for the game is acquired through the actions of the hunting animal and the slave, whereas the horse performs no such action.

Therefore, we say that the stronger view regarding the case of the horse is that the game belongs to the usurper, because he is the one who directly caught it. However, he owes payment for the horse’s use, and the hire of the horse may perhaps exceed the value of the game. He may catch a pigeon worth five riyals, while using the horse may cost, for example, fifty riyals.

If he mints fashioned metalwork, weaves spun yarn, bleaches a garment, dyes it, carpenters wood or the like, or if grain becomes a crop, an egg a chick, or a date pit a planted tree, he must return it together with compensation for its depreciation. The usurper is entitled to nothing, and he is liable for its diminution in value.

His statement, “If he mints fashioned metalwork, weaves spun yarn, bleaches a garment, dyes it, carpenters wood or the like, or if grain becomes a crop, an egg a chick, or a date pit a planted tree, he must return it together with compensation for its depreciation; the usurper is entitled to nothing”: the answer to the conditional particle “if” in all these cases is his statement, “he must return it together with compensation for its depreciation.”

His statement, “If he mints fashioned metalwork,” refers to jewelry. Minting it means turning it into currency: for example, he usurps gold jewelry, mints it, and turns it into dinars; or he usurps silver jewelry, mints it, and turns it into dirhams. He must return these dinars and dirhams to the owner and pay compensation for the depreciation. Thus, it may be said: these dinars are worth one hundred riyals, while the jewelry that he turned into dinars was worth two hundred. So he must return the dinars and one hundred riyals.