transgression or negligence. The usurper is liable, because he is the transgressor, while the owner took it on the assumption that it belonged to the usurper.

But if it is destroyed through transgression or negligence on the part of the custodian, then he is liable. Since he is liable and it is his own property, he has no claim against the usurper, nor does the usurper have any claim against him. The same applies in the case of a pledge.

His statement: “or leases it to him.” Thus, if he usurps a car, for example, and leases it to its owner for a day or more, while the owner is unaware, then if it is damaged—even without transgression or negligence—the liability rests with the usurper, because his possession is wrongful. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “No wrongful claimant has any right.” (1)

His statement: “He is not absolved unless the owner knows,” means: unless the owner with whom it was deposited, to whom it was pledged, who consumed it, or who rented it, knows. Once he knows, it is evident that authority over his property belongs to him, and the usurper is absolved.

His statement: “He is absolved by lending it to him.” In “he is absolved,” the subject is the usurper; and in “by lending it,” the pronoun refers to the usurped property. He is absolved by lending it to its owner. An example is a man who usurps a book and then lends it to its owner. In this case, he is absolved whether the owner knows or does not know. The reason is that, if he knows it is his property, he has taken possession of it, and it was destroyed while in his possession. If he does not know that it is his property, then the borrower is liable in all cases, even if he took it believing it belonged to the usurper. This is based on the view that a borrower is liable in all cases, whether he was negligent, transgressed, or neither transgressed nor was negligent.