one locality to another, they are governed by the same rules as merchandise. Thus there are three views: two opposing views and one that draws a distinction. As for foodstuffs transported by the person who seized them from one locality to another, there are three views:

The first is that the owner is entitled only to an equivalent quantity of the same kind of foodstuffs in the locality where they were seized.

The second is that the owner may choose between taking back his actual foodstuffs and holding the person who seized them liable for their equivalent in the locality where they were seized.

The third is Asbagh’s distinction between a nearby destination and a distant one. If the destination is nearby, the owner may choose between taking back his foodstuffs and holding the person who seized them liable for their equivalent in the locality where they were seized. If it is distant, he is entitled only to their equivalent in the locality where they were seized.

Section

Increase or improvement falls into two categories:

The first is that which results from the action of Allah Most High, as when the young grow to maturity, the lean gain weight, or a defect disappears.

The second is that which results from something introduced by the person who seized the property.

The first category never constitutes grounds for compensation in place of restitution.

As for increase or improvement resulting from something introduced into the seized property by the person who seized it, this falls into two categories according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s view and his report from Mālik:

The first is where he has used his own resources to add materials that remain physically present, such as dye, salvaged materials used in construction, and the like.