Section

If the usurper claims that the property has perished and the owner denies it, the usurper is deemed truthful upon taking an oath, according to the correct view. Once he has sworn, the owner may exact its value from him—this being the sounder position. If they disagree about the item’s value, about the garments that were on the usurped slave, or about an inborn defect, the usurper is believed on oath; whereas for a defect that arose after the usurpation, the owner is believed on oath, and this is the more correct opinion.

Should the usurper return the property after its market price has fallen, he owes nothing. For example, he seizes a garment worth ten dirhams; the price later drops to one dirham. He wears it until it becomes worn and is now worth half a dirham, then returns it. He must pay five dirhams—the proportionate share of what was ruined, calculated against the item’s highest value.

I say: If someone usurps a pair of boots worth ten, and one of them is lost while he returns the other whose value is two dirhams—or he destroys one of them, whether during the usurpation or after it has been restored to the owner—he is liable for eight dirhams according to the sounder view, and Allah knows best.

If a diminution occurs that inevitably results in total loss—for instance, he turns wheat into porridge—this is treated as complete destruction. Another opinion is that he must return what remains together with compensation for the deficiency.

When the usurped slave commits an offense that incurs a financial liability attaching to his person, the usurper must ransom him by paying whichever is less: his value or the amount owed. If the slave subsequently dies in the usurper’s possession, the owner may claim his value from the usurper, and the injured party may also demand compensation from him. The victim may even claim against what the owner has taken, after which the owner will turn against the usurper for reimbursement.

If the usurper returns the slave to the owner and the slave is later sold to satisfy the liability for the offense, the owner may recover from the usurper whatever the injured party has received.

If someone usurps land and removes its soil, the owner may compel him either to restore that very soil or soil of equal quantity and to return the land to its former state. The remover may on his own initiative replace the soil—even if the owner does not demand it—provided he has some interest in doing so; otherwise, according to the sounder view, he may not replace it without the owner’s consent.

The same ruling applies to digging a well and then filling it in: if the ground is brought back to its original condition and no deficiency remains, no arsh is due, though the usurper must pay the going rental value for the period required to make the restoration. If any deficiency persists, its arsh is added to that rental.

If a person usurps oil or something similar and heats it so that its quantity decreases while its value remains unchanged, he must return what is left and pay for what has evaporated, according to the sounder view; and if it diminishes