And the second is liability without an apparent legal basis.

As for liability resting on an apparent legal basis, there is no disagreement that the yield belongs to the person bearing liability, since an explicit ruling to this effect has been transmitted from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

As for liability without an apparent legal basis—as in the case of a usurper, a thief, or someone similarly situated—there are six opinions:

The first is that the usurper has no right to any of the yields, whether generated by the underlying property or otherwise. This applies whether he derives income from it by collecting its produce, rents, or revenues; uses it himself without deriving income; or leaves it idle, neither letting it out nor using it. In all these cases, he must pay rent: the fair rental value if he uses it or leaves it idle without using it; and, if he lets it out and collects the revenue, whichever is greater—the fair rental value or the rent he charged. This is the position of Mutarrif and Ibn al-Mājishūn in al-Wādihah.

The second opinion is that he must return the yield and pay rent if he lets it out or benefits from its services or resides in it. If he neither lets it out nor benefits from it in any of these ways, he owes nothing.

The third opinion is that if he lets it out, he must surrender the rent; if he does not let it out, he owes nothing, even if he resides in it or uses its services. This is Abū al-Faraj’s report from Mālik.

The fourth opinion distinguishes between animate and immovable property.

The fifth opinion distinguishes between yields generated by the income-producing property itself, such as milk, wool, and fruit, and those not generated by it, such as revenues from slaves and rent from dwellings.

The sixth opinion is that he is entitled to all the yields, even those generated by the usurped property itself.