is a transgressor, so he does not deserve to have the property of the garment owner removed from him due to his transgression. It is possible that he is compelled [to sell] so that the usurper may obtain the price of his dye.

The second category: That he usurps a garment and dye from one person and dyes it with it. If their values do not increase or decrease, he returns both and owes nothing. If the value increases, it belongs to the owner, and the usurper gets nothing; because he only has an effect on the dye, not the essence. If it decreases due to the dye, the usurper is liable for the loss; because it is due to his transgression. If it decreases due to a change in prices, he is not liable for it.

The third category: That he usurps the garment of one man and the dye of another, and dyes it with it. If the two values are as they were, they are partners in proportion to their property. If it increases, the increase belongs to both. If it decreases due to the dye, the liability is on the usurper, and the decrease is taken from the owner of the dye; because it is dissipated in the garment, and he has recourse against the usurper for it. If it decreases due to a decline in the price of garments, or the price of the dye, or the price of both, the usurper is not liable for it, and the loss in the property of each of them is from their own. If the owner of the dye wishes to remove it, or the owner of the garment wishes to do so, their ruling is the same as if the usurper had dyed it with dye from his own [possession], according to what has already been explained. If he usurps honey and starch and makes them into a sweet, its ruling is the same as if he usurped a garment and dyed it, according to what has been mentioned regarding that. The second ruling: Whenever the usurped property has a rental value, the usurper is liable for the equivalent rental for the duration it remained in his hands, whether he availed himself of the benefits or let them go to waste. This is the well-known position in the Madhhab. Ahmad stated this in a narration by al-Athram, and al-Shafi'i held this view as well. Abu Hanifa said: He is not liable for the benefits. This is what the companions of Malik advocated. Muhammad ibn al-Hakam narrated from Ahmad regarding one who usurped a house and lived in it for twenty years: "I do not dare to say that the residence he occupied is [a debt] upon him." This indicates his hesitation in mandating the rent, except that Abu Bakr said: This is an old statement; because Muhammad ibn al-Hakam died twenty years before Abu Abd Allah.