the usurper. Thus, we say: the owner may choose between seeking recourse from the usurper, since he is the one who usurped his property—that is, directly committed the usurpation—and seeking recourse from the one who ate it, since the destruction occurred while it was in his possession.

Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) mentioned in al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyyah (1) that there are ten successive possessors following the usurper—that is, those to whom the usurped property passes from the usurper—and that all of them are liable. In other words, they may be held liable. As for where ultimate liability lies: if such a possessor knew [that the property was usurped], ultimate liability rests upon him; but if he was unaware, ultimate liability rests upon the usurper—except in cases where he took possession on the understanding that he would be liable in all circumstances, in which case ultimate liability rests upon him.

An example of this is where one person usurps property from another usurper. The second usurper took the property on the basis that he is liable for it, because he is a transgressor. Therefore, if the owner holds the first usurper liable, the latter may seek recourse from the second; but if he holds the second liable, the latter may not seek recourse from anyone.

Another example: a person usurps a watch and leaves it in the safekeeping of someone else. The watch is then stolen from the custodian’s house, despite his having taken due care and placed it in secure custody. The custodian bears no liability, because he neither transgressed nor was negligent. Thus, if the owner comes and holds the custodian liable, the custodian may seek recourse from the usurper for what he was made to pay, because he accepted custody of the watch on the understanding that he was not liable for it, and because he acted properly; “there is no blame upon those who do good.” But if the owner holds the usurper liable, the usurper may not seek recourse from the custodian, because the latter is not liable. Thus, were it supposed that