It was held only by certain scholars whose position the majority of them dispute and refute with scriptural proofs. Thus, it is merely the position of some scholars (1). The jurists nevertheless disagree (2) concerning a usurper who transforms usurped property in such a way that it is no longer known by its original name, as when grain is ground (3).

One opinion holds that this is tantamount to destroying it, so the owner is entitled (4) to its value. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa.

Another holds that the property remains in its owner’s possession: any increase belongs to him (5), while any loss is borne by the usurper. This is the position (6) of al-Shāfiī.

A third holds that the owner may choose either to take the property itself and claim compensation for any diminution in its value (7), or to demand its equivalent and leave the property to the usurper. [This is the well-known position in Mālik’s school] (8). If he takes the property itself, one opinion holds that (9) the usurper becomes a co-owner in proportion to the workmanship he added to it. Another opinion holds that he is entitled to nothing. All these opinions are found within the school of Ahmad and others. Accordingly, the position that he denounced is contrary to that of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Moreover, he lied in his account when he said (10), “If they fought, the owner would be the wrongdoer,” for