his ownership of it is complete, so Zakat becomes obligatory upon him, just as if it were forgotten by one with whom he had deposited it, or as if he were taken captive, or imprisoned, and he was obstructed from his wealth. According to both narrations, he is not required to pay its Zakat before taking possession of it. Malik said: If he recovers it, he pays Zakat on it for one year, because it was in his possession at the beginning of the year, then it came into his possession after that, so it is necessary that Zakat for one year not be dropped. This is not correct, because if the impediment to the obligation of Zakat is found during part of the year, it prevents it, like the deficiency of the threshold (nisab).

Section: If the usurped property is grazing livestock, and it was stall-fed by its owner and its usurper, then there is no Zakat on it, due to the absence of the condition. If it was grazing livestock in the possession of both, then there is Zakat on it, according to the narration that holds its obligation in the case of usurped property. If it was stall-fed by its owner but grazing in the possession of the usurper, there are two views; one is that there is no Zakat upon him, because its owner did not consent to its grazing, so Zakat did not become obligatory upon him by the action of the usurper, just as if it grazed without him having let it graze. The second is that Zakat is upon him, because grazing necessitates Zakat from the owner, so it necessitates it from the usurper, just as if it were grazing in the possession of both. Likewise, if he usurps seeds and sows them, the tithe (ushr) becomes due on what is produced from it. If it was grazing in the possession of its owner but stall-fed in the possession of its usurper, there is no Zakat on it, due to the absence of the condition. The Qadi said: There is another view, that Zakat is obligatory on it, because stall-feeding is forbidden, so it has no effect on Zakat, just as if he usurped currency and minted it into ornaments, Zakat is not dropped from it due to his minting. Abu al-Hasan al-Amidi said: This is the correct view, because stall-feeding only drops Zakat due to the expense it entails, and here there is no expense upon him. We say: Grazing is a condition for the obligation of Zakat and it was not found, so Zakat is not obligatory, like the deficiency of the threshold or ownership. His statement that stall-feeding is forbidden is not correct; only usurpation is forbidden. Stall-feeding is merely a disposal of his wealth by feeding it, and there is no prohibition in it. For this reason, if he fed it while in the possession of