them. As for our evidence, the tangible asset of the usurped property remains existing, so it is obligatory to return it to him, just as if he had slaughtered the sheep without roasting it. Furthermore, because if he had done this to his own property, ownership would not have ceased, so if he does it to the property of another, it does not cease, just as if he had slaughtered the sheep or beaten the silver nugget into dirhams. Also, because it does not remove ownership when it occurs without human action, so it does not remove it when a human performs it, like that which we mentioned. As for the report, it is not established in the form they narrated, and there is no mention in the narration of Abu Dawud: "and we shall satisfy them [with its price]." Once this is established, the usurper has no right to anything for his labor, whether the tangible asset increased or did not increase. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that the usurper shares the owner in the increase, because it was obtained through his efforts, and his efforts are treated similarly to tangible assets; therefore, it is like the case where one usurps a garment and dyes it. The first [opinion] is the school's doctrine; it was mentioned by Abu Bakr and the Qadi, because the usurper acted upon the property of another without his permission, so he does not deserve compensation for it, just as if he boiled oil and its value increased, or built a wall for another, or planted wheat belonging to a person on his land, and all other actions of the usurper. As for dyeing a garment, the dye is a tangible asset of property, and the owner’s ownership of it does not cease by mixing it with the property of others, [and this is an argument against him; for if his ownership of his dye does not cease by placing it into the property of another], and treating it as a quality, then it is more fitting that the ownership of the other party does not cease due to his action upon it. If he argues that whoever plants on the land of another is repaid for his expenditure, we say: The crop is the property of the usurper because it is his tangible asset, and its value increases through his expenditure; so when the landowner takes it, he accounts for what he spent on his own property. In our issue, his action was upon the property of the one from whom it was usurped without his permission, so it is void. Furthermore, we say: The value of [the crop is only obligatory according to one of the two narrations. As for if the tangible asset diminished without the value, he returns the remaining item and the value of] the loss, and if both the tangible asset and the value diminished, he is liable for both together, like oil if he boiled it. Such is the statement regarding everything he has disposed of, such as a nugget he struck into dirhams or jewelry, or clay