If, however, the property has been destroyed through consumption or otherwise, whether in their possession or that of the thief, one view holds that they are liable to its owners, just as all other usurpers are liable (1). This is the view of al-Shāfiī and Ahmad—may Allah have mercy on them both (2). If they are insolvent, the debt remains their liability until they are able to pay (3). Another view holds that the penalty of amputation and financial compensation may not both be imposed (4); this is the view of Abū Hanīfa. A third view holds that they must compensate only when solvent, not when insolvent; this is the view of Mālik (5).

It is not lawful for the ruler to charge the owners of the property a fee for pursuing the brigands, carrying out the prescribed punishments (6), and recovering the people’s property from them (7), nor for pursuing thieves—whether the fee is for himself or for the troops he sends in pursuit of them. Rather, pursuing such people is a form of jihad in the cause of Allah. Muslim troops are therefore to be deployed for it just as they are deployed (8) on other military expeditions known as al-bīkār (9).