its owner, it is not forbidden upon him. What al-Amidi mentioned regarding the lightness of the expense is not correct, for lightness is not considered in itself, but is rather considered by its likelihood, which is grazing. Furthermore, what both of them mentioned is invalidated by the case where it is stall-fed in the possession of both. What the Qadi mentioned is invalidated by the case where its owner feeds it forbidden fodder, or destroys a sheep from the threshold (nisab); for it is forbidden, yet Zakat is dropped by it. As for if he usurps gold and mints it into ornaments, it does not resemble what we have differed upon; for in the case of stall-feeding, a condition of the obligation is missed, whereas with minting, nothing is missed. The difference of opinion is merely whether it (the minting) is a factor that drops Zakat on the condition that it is permissible; so if it is forbidden, the condition for dropping the Zakat is not found. Also, because if the owner were to feed it forbidden fodder, the Zakat would drop, whereas if he were to mint it in a forbidden fashion, it would not drop; thus they differ. If he were to usurp permissible ornaments and break them, or strike them into dirhams or dinars, Zakat would become obligatory upon it, because the factor that dropped the Zakat has ceased, so the Zakat became obligatory. It is possible that it does not become obligatory, just as if he usurped stall-fed livestock and let it graze. If he usurps trade goods and trades in them, Zakat is not obligatory upon them, because the intention of trade is a condition, and it was not found from the owner. This is the same whether it was for trade in the possession of its owner or not, because the continuation of the intention is a condition, and he did not intend trade with it while in the possession of the usurper. It is possible that Zakat becomes obligatory upon it if it were for trade in the possession of its owner and he maintained the intention, because it did not depart from his ownership by his usurping it, even if the usurper intended personal use for it. In every instance where we have made Zakat obligatory, the usurper is liable for it, because it is a loss that occurred in his possession, so he is liable for it, just as if it had been destroyed.

Section: If one head of the threshold (nisab) or more gets lost, or is usurped, and thus the threshold decreases, the ruling regarding it is as if the whole of it were lost or usurped. However, if we say that Zakat is obligatory, he must pay out from what is present with him. When the lost or usurped property returns, he pays Zakat on it, just as if the whole of it had returned.