on the day of seizure or taking it back in its diminished condition, with no entitlement to compensation for the damage. Ibn al-Qāsim expresses the same view in al-Mudawwana concerning a thief whose riding causes an animal to lose weight; in the Book of False Accusations of Unlawful Intercourse concerning a slave woman jointly owned by two partners, one of whom has intercourse with her; and in several other passages of al-ʿUtbiyya and al-Mudawwana as well.

If the damage was caused by someone other than the person who seized the property, its owner may either hold the latter liable for its value on the day of seizure, leaving him to pursue the person who caused the damage, or relinquish his claim against him and pursue the person who caused the damage under the rules governing such liability. It has also been held that, in all circumstances warranting compensation in place of the seized property, the owner may hold the person who seized it liable for its value on any day he chooses, thus entitling him to the highest valuation. Ibn Shaʿbān related this view from Ibn Wahb, Ashhab and others.

Section

There are three views concerning the transfer of seized property from one locality to another when it consists of merchandise or living property:

The first is that such a transfer constitutes grounds for compensation in place of restitution. The owner may therefore either take back his property or hold the person who seized it liable for its value on the day of seizure. This is Asbagh’s view and the apparent meaning of his report from Ashhab in his collected hearings in the Book of Forcible Seizure.

The second is that such a transfer does not constitute grounds for compensation in place of restitution. The owner may therefore only take back his property. This is Sahnūn’s view, since he regarded moving any such property from one locality to another as equivalent to fluctuations in market prices.

The third distinguishes living property from merchandise. The transfer of merchandise constitutes grounds for compensation in place of restitution, and its owner may either take it back or hold the person who seized it liable for its value on the day and in the locality where he seized it. The transfer of living property does not constitute such grounds: its owner must take it back wherever he finds it and may not hold the person who seized it liable for its value. This applies to living property for which hired transport is not required, such as riding animals and slaves of inferior quality. As for slaves who require hired transport from