and it then turns into wine. Once the grape juice turns into wine, it loses its value as property, and it becomes obligatory to pour it out. The author says that if the grape juice turns into wine, he is liable for an equivalent—that is, an equivalent of the grape juice, not of the wine. This is because its turning into wine is tantamount to its destruction; what is legally unobtainable is like what is physically unobtainable. Grape juice is a fungible commodity because it is measured by volume.

His statement, “If it turns into vinegar,” means that, after becoming wine, it turns into vinegar on its own, by the disappearance of its intoxicating potency.

His statement, “He must return it,” means that he must return the vinegar, because it is the very property of its owner.

His statement, “together with the decrease in its value as grape juice,” means that, if it turns into wine and then vinegar, its value will inevitably decline. Thus, he is liable for the decrease in its value as grape juice, because the loss occurred while it was in the usurper’s possession.

For example, a man unlawfully takes grape juice, which then turns into wine. It changes from a lawful substance into an unlawful one, but thereafter it becomes vinegar, for wine may turn into vinegar on its own. When wine turns into vinegar on its own, it is lawful. It thus returns to being grape juice, but grape juice that has become vinegar after having been wine, and its value declines. If you brought this vessel which had turned into vinegar after becoming wine, alongside an identical vessel of grape juice, the vessel of grape juice would undoubtedly be worth more. The author says, “He must return it,” meaning that the usurper must return this wine that has turned into vinegar, because it is the very property of its owner.

If its value has declined—for instance, when he took it unlawfully as grape juice it was worth one hundred, but now it is worth only eighty—then the usurper is liable for the decrease. This is why he said, “together with the decrease in its value as grape juice,” meaning the decrease in its value relative to what it was as grape juice.

Can it be said that this supports the view held by Shaykh al-Islam