her value together with the value of her child; he may not take her herself. This was also the view of Muḥammad ibn Maslama. A different report from Mālik, however, states that the owner is entitled only to her value as of the day she was seized; once he receives that amount, both she and her child become permissible property of the purchaser.

If the female slave is later reclaimed while still in the purchaser’s hand and, without anyone’s wrongdoing, a defect has appeared in her, the owner is again given three choices: he may take her as she is; he may ratify the sale and receive the purchase price; or he may leave her with the purchaser and seek her value from the usurper, calculated on the day of the usurpation.

Now, if the owner may not demand from the usurper the loss in value caused by a blemish that arose under the usurper’s watch—so long as the usurper did not cause it—then a fortiori he may not demand such a loss from the purchaser in cases of death or any other occurrence for which the purchaser bore no responsibility. In that situation the owner’s claim against the purchaser is cut off, and he turns back to the usurper for whichever remedy he prefers: either the purchase price or the item’s value on the day it was seized.

Suppose the usurped property was a male slave whom the purchaser then killed, or an animal he maimed, or a garment he wore until it wore out, or food that he consumed; and afterward the true owner asserted his right. In each of these cases the owner may claim from the purchaser the item’s value on the day it was destroyed or consumed. The purchaser in turn may recover from the seller whatever price he had paid; and if that payment is less than the item’s value on the day of the usurpation, he may seek the difference from the usurper.