diminution is not attributable to the usurped item itself, but to an external matter—namely, its market value among people. It is well known that prices sometimes rise and sometimes fall. Thus, if someone usurps a sheep worth two hundred riyals, and it remains with him without any diminution in the animal itself—indeed, it may even increase—then the price falls until it is worth only one hundred riyals, must he return the sheep along with one hundred riyals?

According to the author’s view, he returns the sheep and is not liable for the fall in price, even though, when he usurped it from its owner, it was worth two hundred, and he prevented the owner from accessing it until its price fell to one hundred. The position of the school—which is the view adopted by the author—is that he is not liable. They reasoned that the usurped item itself has not diminished. If it has not diminished, then an increase or decrease in its value is due to an external factor: demand or supply. When demand increases, prices necessarily rise; and when supply increases, prices necessarily fall. As for the item itself, it has not changed. The Prophet ﷺ said: “The hand is liable for what it takes until it returns it.” (1)

They said: A comparable case is where someone borrows from another person a sāʿ of wheat worth three dirhams, then returns it when it is worth two dirhams. Must he give him one dirham? No, because he has returned the equivalent of what he took. Likewise, in the reverse case, if he borrows a sāʿ of wheat worth two dirhams, then its price rises and it becomes worth three dirhams, he returns the sāʿ and does not take one dirham from its owner. Thus, a fall or rise in price is due to an external factor.

They excluded from this the case where it perishes while its value at the time of its destruction was two hundred, and then he wishes to compensate its owner for it after its value has fallen. In that case, he is liable for two hundred, in consideration of