He must pay the child’s value as assessed on the day it is born and the purchaser may recover that amount from the usurper. If the stolen item itself perishes while in the purchaser’s hands and he is made to pay its value, he has no right of recourse against the usurper; the same, on the stronger view, applies when it merely becomes defective in his possession. Nor—again according to the sounder opinion—may he seek reimbursement for any compensation he pays on account of benefits he has already enjoyed. He may, however, reclaim whatever indemnity he is charged for other property that is destroyed while with him, as well as the arsh due for tearing down any building or trees he had added once they are removed, this being the more correct position. In brief: every liability that would revert to the purchaser were he the one who bore it ultimately rests on the usurper; if the usurper is compelled to pay it, he may not then turn back to the purchaser. For all liabilities that do not fall under this rule, recourse is permitted.

I say: Anyone whose possession derives from the usurper’s hand is treated in the same manner as the purchaser. Allah knows best.