Ibn Mansur, and it is the choice of Abu Bakr. The correct [opinion] is the first one, because she was compelled to commit the forbidden act of intercourse, so the dowry is mandatory for her, like the virgin, and the indemnity for the loss of virginity is also mandatory along with the dowry, as we previously established.

Section: If the usurper leases the usurped property, the lease is void according to one of the reports, like the sale. Its owner may hold either of them liable for its fair rental value. If he holds the lessee liable, he [the lessee] does not seek recourse for that, because he entered into the contract with the understanding that he would be liable for the usufruct, [unless the fair rental value exceeds the amount specified in the contract, in which case he seeks recourse for the surplus] and the amount specified in the contract is dropped for him. If he paid it to the usurper, he seeks recourse from him. If the asset is destroyed while in the hands of the lessee, its owner may hold whichever of them he wishes liable for its value. If he holds the lessee liable, he has the right to seek recourse for that from the usurper, because he entered into the contract with him with the understanding that he would not be liable for the asset, and he did not receive a substitute in exchange for what he paid; this is provided that he did not know of the usurpation. If he did know, he does not seek recourse from anyone, because he entered into it with full awareness, and the destruction occurred while in his hands, so the liability is established upon him. If he holds the usurper liable for the rent and the value, he seeks recourse for the rent from the lessee in all cases, and he seeks recourse for the value if the lessee knew of the usurpation, and otherwise not. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan regarding the entire matter. It is narrated from Abu Hanifa that the rent belongs to the usurper rather than the owner of the house. [This is invalid, because the rent is a substitute for the usufruct owned by the owner of the house], and the usurper does not own it, just as in the case of the substitute for parts.

Section: If he leaves the usurped property as a trust (wadi'a) or appoints a man as an agent to sell it, and he hands it over to him, and it is destroyed while in his hands, the owner may hold either of them liable. As for the usurper, it is because he stood between the owner and his property and established an unjust control over it. As for the trustee and the agent, it is because they established their control over protected property without a right. If he holds the usurper liable, and they were unaware of the usurpation, the liability is established upon him, and he does not seek recourse from anyone. If he holds them liable, they seek recourse from the usurper for what they paid in terms of value and rent, because they entered into it