He—may Allah be pleased with him—was asked:

A miller holds a written record of a debt owed to him by another man, dating back more than ten years. He has recovered most of it and has stated that less than a hundred remains outstanding. The holder of this document then brought some of an emir’s slave soldiers, who seized two horses for him without any legally valid pledge, without bringing a claim before a judge, and without their owner’s permission. He used the horses for eight months, then claimed that they had been lost. May their owner demand payment for their use during this period, as well as their monetary value? Whose statement is to be accepted concerning their value: his, or their owner’s concerning the hire charge and price?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds.

If only a hundred remained due to him, and the two horses were worth more than a hundred dirhams, then the man who seized them is liable for the amount exceeding his entitlement. He must also pay for their use because he took possession of them.

The statement accepted concerning their value is that of the person liable—the wrongful seizer—unless he describes them and acknowledges that their value was greater than that, or evidence establishes their value—even the testimony of one witness together with the claimant’s oath. As for the portion corresponding to his entitlement, it is set off against the debt owed to him.