ownership of it, just like in a sale. Furthermore, it is a liability regarding something for which ownership is transferred, so we transfer it, just as if he mixed his oil with his [the owner's] oil. Our view is that it is not valid for the usurped property to be owned through sale, so it is not valid through liability, just like destroyed property. Also, he paid for what he was unable to return due to it exiting his possession, so he does not own it by that, just as if the usurped object were a mudabbar (a slave granted post-mortem emancipation). This is not a case of combining the replacement and the replaced object; because he acquired the value due to the impediment (haylula), not by way of exchange. This is why if he returns the usurped property to him, he returns the value to him. It is not like the oil, because it is permissible to sell it, and because the owner's right to it was interrupted due to the permanent impossibility of returning it. Once this is established, whenever he becomes able to retrieve the usurped property, he shall return it, along with its separate and attached growth, and its equivalent rent up to the time he paid its replacement. Is he liable for its rent from the time he paid the replacement until he returns it? There are two views. The most correct of them is that he is not liable for it, because he became entitled to the benefit of the replacement which was put in its place, so he is not entitled to the benefit of it and what stood in its place, like all other things. The second [view] is that he has the right to the rent, because the object remains his property and the benefit is for him. It is incumbent upon the owner to return what he took as a replacement to the usurper, because he took it due to the impediment, and it has since ceased; thus, it is mandatory to return what he took because of it if it exists in its original form, and to return its attached increase, such as weight gain and the like, because it follows [the principal] in annulments, and this is an annulment. He is not obligated to return its separate increase, because it was produced while in his ownership and does not follow [the principal] in annulments, so it resembles the increase of an object sold and returned due to a defect. If the replacement is destroyed, he returns its equivalent or its value if it is not of the category of fungible goods.

Section: If he usurps juice and it becomes wine, he is liable for the equivalent of the juice, because it was destroyed in his hands. If it becomes vinegar, it is mandatory to return it, along with what was lost from the value of the juice, and he retrieves what he paid as its replacement.