then the sound view is likewise that they are valid. However, if the owner’s actual property still remains, he may recover it and say: “This is my very property, and I want it. As for you, purchaser, go to the usurper.”

The word concerning the value, quantity, or description of what has perished is his; and concerning its return and its being free of defects, the word is that of its owner.

His statement, “The word concerning the value, quantity, or description of what has perished is his,” means: the word of the usurper. Thus, if he usurps something that subsequently perishes—and it is property whose value is legally recognized—and the owner says, “Its value was one thousand,” while the usurper says, “Its value was five hundred,” then the usurper’s word is accepted. This is due to the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.” (1)

In this case, the owner and the usurper agree that its value was five hundred, while the owner claims an additional amount. The owner is therefore the claimant, and the burden of proof is upon the claimant, while the oath is upon the one who denies. Another reason is that the usurper is liable for compensation, and whenever someone is liable for compensation, his word is accepted. The scholars derived this principle from the preceding hadith: “The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.”

However, whenever we say that a person’s word is accepted in a matter involving the rights of human beings, he must take an oath, because of the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The oath is upon the one who denies.” As for matters involving the right of Allah, the denier’s word is accepted without an oath. Thus, if the muhtasib—that is, the one who enjoins what is right and forbids what is wrong—says to a property owner, “Pay the zakah,” and he replies, “I have paid zakah on my property,” the muhtasib says, “No,”