And the second view: it must be removed immediately, because it is possible to return the usurped item, therefore it is mandatory even if it leads to the destruction of the property, like returning timber beams used in construction. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two views similar to these. Our position is that it is possible to return the usurped item without destruction, so destruction is not permitted, just as if it contained the property of someone else. It differs from the timber beams in construction, for it is not possible to return those without destruction.

Section: If one usurps something and mixes it with what can be distinguished from it, such as wheat with barley, or sesame, or small grains with large ones, or black raisins with red ones, he must distinguish them and return them, and the wage of the one who distinguishes them is upon him. If it is not possible to distinguish all of it, he must distinguish as much as possible. If it is not possible to distinguish any of it, there are five categories: The first is that he mixes it with an equivalent from its own genus, such as oil with oil, wheat with its equivalent, flour with its equivalent, or dinars or dirhams with their equivalents. Ibn Hamid said: He is obligated to provide an equivalent of what was usurped. This is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words, for he stated that he becomes a partner in it if he mixes it with a different genus, so it serves as a notification for when he mixes it with the same genus. This is the opinion of some of the followers of al-Shafi'i, except in the case of flour, as they hold its value must be paid because they do not consider it a fungible good. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that he is obligated to provide its equivalent, whether he chooses to give it from that mixture or from elsewhere, because it has become impossible for him to return the actual property due to the mixing, so it is like it has been destroyed, because he cannot distinguish any of his property. Our position is that he is able to hand over some of his property to him, along with returning an equivalent for the remainder, so he does not shift to providing the equivalent for the entirety, just as if he usurped something manufactured and half of it was destroyed. This is because when he gives him from it, he has given him some of his property and a substitute for the rest, which is better than giving it from elsewhere. The second, third, and fourth categories are that he mixes it with something better than it, worse than it, or of a different genus. The apparent position in Ahmad's words is that they are partners; the whole is sold, and each is given the amount of his right. This is because he said in the report of Abu al-Harith, regarding a man who had a ratl of oil and another who had a ratl of sesame oil, and they became mixed: the oil is all sold, and each of them is given their share. This is because by doing so, we deliver the actual property to each of them; and when