The sound view is that, where hardship and difficulty arise, the transactions are deemed valid out of necessity, and the owner is told: “You are entitled to property equivalent to yours, if it is fungible; otherwise, you are entitled to its value.”

The fourth view is that the usurper’s transactions are valid. This is also a report from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. However, the owner has the right to reclaim the property. For example, if he slaughters a sheep in the prescribed manner, then according to this report the slaughter is valid, while the sheep reverts to its owner. If the owner demands an equivalent and we hold it to be fungible, the usurper is liable to replace it with an equivalent. If we hold it to be non-fungible and the owner demands its equivalent while it was still alive, saying, “Its value while alive was greater than its value as meat,” we give him the difference; or we give him its full value, and the meat belongs to the usurper.

Likewise, if he performs ablution with usurped water, then according to this report—which is contrary to the established school—the ablution is valid. This is the sound view, because this act is not specific to ablution: the prohibition on the usurper’s disposal of usurped property encompasses both ablution and other acts. The usurper was not forbidden specifically from performing ablution; he was not told, “Do not perform ablution with usurped water.” Rather, he was told, “Do not dispose of usurped water.” Since the prohibition was not specific but general, the act of worship is valid. This is the preponderant view, as indicated by the following:

Backbiting is unlawful for one who is fasting, and eating is likewise unlawful. If he eats, his fast is invalidated; but if he backbites, it is not invalidated. This is because eating is prohibited specifically for the fasting person, whereas backbiting is not prohibited specifically for the fasting person; rather, it is prohibited for him and for others alike. This makes clear the evident distinction between a general prohibition and a specific one.

Thus, in summary: the usurper’s transactions are valid. If the owner ratifies them, then this is as clear as the sun; but if he does not ratify them