it is possible to return to the actual property, one should not shift to the substitute. And if the usurped item has decreased in value compared to its individual state, the usurper is liable for the loss, because it resulted from his action. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that the usurper is obligated to provide its equivalent, because it has become consumed through mixing. Similarly, if one bought oil and mixed it with his own, then became bankrupt, the seller becomes like some of the creditors, and because it has become impossible for him to access the actual property, he is entitled to its substitute, just as if it were destroyed. It is possible that Ahmad's words are interpreted as referring to when they are mixed without usurpation; however, as for the usurped item, the usurper has performed an action that prevented the owner from taking his right from the fungible goods in a distinguished manner, so he is obligated to provide an equivalent, just as if he had destroyed it, unless he mixed it with something better and offered the owner the equivalent of his right from it, in which case he must accept it because he has delivered his right in its actual form and has acted benevolently regarding the remainder. If he mixes it with something inferior and the owner is content to take the amount of his right from it, the usurper is obligated to offer it, because it is possible for him to return some of the usurped item and the equivalent of the remainder without harm. It is said: The usurper is not obligated to do that, because his right has shifted to the liability (dhimmah), so he cannot be compelled to accept anything other than property. If he offers it to the one from whom the item was usurped and he refuses, he cannot be compelled to accept it because it is less than his right. If they both agree to that, it is permissible, and the owner is considered a benefactor by waiving part of his right. If they agree that he takes more than his right from the inferior portion, or less than his right from the superior portion, it is not permissible, because it is usury (riba), as he is taking more in quantity as compensation for quality. If the reverse is the case, and he is content to take less than his right from the inferior portion, or the usurper is generous and gives more than his right from the superior portion, it is permissible, because there is no counter-value for the excess, and it is merely a pure act of benevolence. If he mixes it with a different genus and they agree that he takes more or less than the amount of his right, it is permissible, because it is its substitute from a different genus, so the excess between them is not forbidden. The fifth category: that he mixes it with something that has no value, such as oil he mixed with water, or milk he adulterated with water. If it is possible to separate it