Section

The person who seizes property becomes liable for it upon taking possession, even if it is lost through an act of God, whether the property is movable or immovable, provided that he intended to seize the property itself. This is contrary to Abū Hanīfa’s view that someone who seizes a house is not liable for it if it collapses.

Section

There are two views concerning the yield of seized property:

The first is that it is governed by the same rules as the seized property itself.

The second is that it is governed by different rules.

Those who hold that the same rules apply—Ashhab’s position—maintain that the person who seized the property must pay the value of its yield on the day he received it, or the highest value it subsequently attained, reflecting the disagreement concerning seized property itself. This applies even if the yield is lost through an act of God. If the seized property itself is lost, he must pay its value on the day of seizure, or on any day chosen by the owner, according to the differing views reported by Ibn Sha‘bān.

Section

Those who hold that the yield is governed by rules different from those governing the seized property disagree extensively over those rules. They nevertheless agree that, if its loss is established by evidence, the person who seized the property bears no liability for the yield; but if he merely claims that it was lost, his claim is not accepted, even if it is of a kind that cannot be concealed.

Section

These differing views may be summarized by dividing yields into three categories:

The first is yield generated by the seized property in its own form and likeness, namely offspring.