he had seized and acquired unlawfully—for example, if his dirhams and dinars were mixed with dirhams and dinars he had seized, or his grain, fruit, flour, vinegar, or gold were mixed with goods of the same kinds that he had seized—such mixing would not render his own property unlawful for him. For unlawful things fall into two categories.

The first consists of things unlawful because of their inherent nature and characteristics, such as blood, carrion, and pork. If something of this kind is mixed with a liquid, and the taste, colour, or smell of the impurity becomes perceptible in it, the liquid becomes unlawful.

The second consists of things unlawful because of how they were acquired, such as gold and silver currency, grain, fruit, and the like. These things are never absolutely unlawful in themselves; rather, they are unlawful for whoever takes them wrongfully or by unlawful means. If a man takes some of them and mixes them with his own property, he must remove the unlawfully acquired amount from that mixture, while the amount corresponding to his own property remains lawful for him.

But what if he were to set aside an equivalent amount from other property? There are two views within the schools of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad:

The first is that mixing is treated like destruction, so setting aside an equivalent amount suffices.

The second is that the wronged person’s right remains attached to the property itself despite the mixing. An amount corresponding to that person’s entitlement must therefore be removed from the mixed property itself.

With this established, if the effect of the wronged person’s labour remains embodied in the item—as with his cooking, weaving, and the like—he is entitled only to the value of that benefit. Thus, if he pays the wronged person