and the owner of the usurped property has one ṣāʿ, the value is divided between them in thirds, and so on.

According to the authoritative position of the school, however, he must provide an equivalent of the usurped property from outside the jointly owned mixture. Thus, he is told: “Buy the equivalent of what you usurped.” The difference between the two views is as follows. First, if we say that they are partners, then something that had belonged to the usurper necessarily enters into the ownership of the original owner.

Second, when they are partners, the partnership can sometimes be troublesome: they may dispute over selling it or dividing it. But if we say, “Bring its replacement,” the usurper can simply go to the market and buy a replacement.

Third, it is rare for the characteristics of the mixed items to be identical. It is uncommon for the wheat usurped by the usurper to be exactly like the wheat with which he mixed it. Consequently, something inferior to the original owner’s property may enter into his ownership. But if we say, “You must provide its equivalent,” he will buy one equivalent to it in type and description, and we avoid disagreement. Therefore, we say that the view adopted by the scholars of the school is closer to what is correct than the view adopted by the author.

His statement, “or he dyes the garment,” means that he usurps a garment and dyes it a color, while its value neither increases nor decreases. In that case, they are partners: the usurper is entitled to the value of the dye, and the owner of the garment to the value of the garment. Thus, if the dye is valued at ten riyals and the garment at ten, and they are sold for twenty riyals, each of them receives the price of his own property. This contradicts what was stated earlier: that if he dyes the garment, it belongs to the owner of the garment. We have previously pointed this out (1).