as in the case of a human. If it is feared that removing it will lead to death or delayed healing, it is not obligatory to remove it; because the animal has a more emphasized sanctity than the item of wealth. For this reason, it is permissible for him to take the wealth of another to preserve his life, and to destroy wealth to maintain it, which is what he eats. Similarly, animals whose meat is not eaten, such as a mule and the domestic donkey. Third, that he sews the wound of an animal that is permissible to eat; if it is owned by someone other than the usurper, and it is feared that it will perish by extracting it, it shall not be extracted; because that involves causing harm to its owner, and harm is not removed by harm, nor is it obligatory to destroy the wealth of one who has not committed a transgression to preserve the wealth of another. If the animal belongs to the usurper, Al-Qadi said: It is obligatory to return it; because it is possible to slaughter the animal and benefit from its meat, and that is permissible. Even if there is a loss to the usurper in that, it is not a barrier to the obligation of returning the usurped item, just like the loss of the building for the return of usurped stone. Abu Al-Khattab said: There are two opinions on this. One of them is this (what Al-Qadi said). The second is that it is not obligatory to extract it; because the animal has sanctity in its own right, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, forbade the slaughter of animals for anything other than food. The followers of Al-Shafi'i have two opinions similar to these. It is possible to differentiate between animals intended for food, such as livestock, chickens, and most birds, and those not intended for it, such as horses and birds intended for their song; for the former, it is obligatory to slaughter it if the return of the usurped item depends on it. For the latter, it is not obligatory; because slaughtering it is a destruction of it, so it runs the course of that whose meat is not eaten. Whenever it is possible to return the thread without the perishing of the animal, or the perishing of some of its limbs, or significant harm, it is obligatory to return it.

Section: If he usurps a weaned young animal and brings it into his house, and it grows up and cannot exit through the door, or if he brings wood into his house and then builds the door narrowly so that it cannot exit except by tearing it down, it is obligatory to tear it down and return the young animal and the wood, just as a building is torn down to return usurped teak wood. If its arrival in the house occurred without