given the choice between different charitable causes, or should he consider which is best? We ask: is he disposing of it for himself or for someone else? If he is acting on behalf of someone else, he should consider what is more beneficial. A town’s inhabitants may not be especially poor, yet they may need a mosque; in that case, we say that spending it on building the mosque is better. The opposite may be the case: mosques are numerous while the town’s people are poor, so we say that charity is better. In any event, the apparent meaning of the author’s words—may Allah have mercy on him—is not intended. Even if we were to say that it is intended, the stronger view is otherwise: he may spend this usurped property on any charitable cause.

Suppose he has needy relatives: may he spend it on his relatives? The answer is yes: he may spend it on his relatives. However, he may not show them favoritism by seeing that others are needier and yet giving it to his relatives. But if his relatives are equal in need to others, or needier than others, there is nothing wrong with giving it to them.

May he himself take it if he is poor? The answer is that there is a difference of opinion. Some scholars say that if he has repented to Allah—and in any case he is repentant, since he now wishes to rid himself of it—and he is poor, he may take it. Other scholars say that this is not permissible, so as to block the means; for a person may declare himself poor when he is not, and thus become lax, or wait until he becomes poor. Thus, the view that prevents him from making himself a recipient is a strong one. But if he hands it over to the judge, and he himself is poor, and the judge gives him some of it, then this is undoubtedly permissible, since all suspicion has now been entirely removed. Accordingly, if the judge gives it to him while he is among those in need, and hands over to him what he had usurped, there is no harm in his accepting it, and his liability has been discharged.