of any benefit to him—whether it be plasterwork or ornamental embellishment—and he is not to be paid anything for it. This ruling is unlike the money a usurper spends on livestock or slaves, for decorative materials can still be removed, whereas fodder and upkeep are consumed and he has wasted them on himself. Moreover, since the one who puts another’s slaves to work or rides another’s animals owes no hire, he likewise has no right to reimbursement for their maintenance or provisions.
If the entire structure he erected consists of nothing but ornamentation or a coat of gypsum, he is still entitled to nothing, for even were he to reclaim it he would derive no benefit from it.
Should the usurper sow the land, the owner may uproot the crop if it is still planting season. If the optimal time for cultivation has passed, the owner is entitled only to the usual rent for comparable land, and the usurper is to be punished. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam relates another view permitting the owner to uproot the crop in either case, yet he adds, “The first opinion is the one we prefer.” A group of scholars from Medina held that the owner should pay the usurper the measure of seed he planted and the costs of cultivation, and then take the crop.
Whoever borrows a slave for work without the master’s permission and the slave is injured must make restitution; if the slave emerges unharmed, the master has the right—should he so wish—to claim the customary hire for such a slave.
Whoever seizes a garment and wears it is liable for the depreciation caused by that use. If the garment is worn out, its owner may either take it together with the loss in value or abandon it and claim its full value. Another opinion limits him to the decrease in value alone, while a third obliges the usurper to pay the garment’s rental for the entire period he wore it, on the grounds that the exact diminution cannot be measured.
If someone usurps a garment and dyes it in a colour that lowers its price, the owner may take it in its diminished state or leave it and receive its value as assessed on the day it was seized. If the dye increases its price, the owner may choose either to reimburse the usurper for the added value or to leave the garment and claim its original worth.