"The benefit belongs to the one who bears the risk"(41). Its liability is upon the usurper, and because he availed himself of a benefit without a contract or a semblance of ownership, he is not liable for it, just as if he committed adultery with a consenting woman. Our position is that whatever is liable for destruction(42) in a void contract may also be liable for mere destruction, like tangible assets, and because he destroyed a commodity with a set value, his liability for it is mandatory, like tangible assets. Or we say: It is usurped property with a set value, so its liability is mandatory, like the asset itself. As for the report, it is mentioned in the context of a sale(43), and the usurper is not included in it because it is not permissible for him to benefit from the usurped property by consensus. It is not analogous to adultery because she consented to the destruction of her benefits without compensation and without a contract that necessitates compensation, so it is in the position of one who lent him her house. If he forced her into it, he is liable for her dowry. The disagreement concerns property that has benefits permitted by a lease contract, such as real estate, garments, animals, and the like. As for sheep, trees, birds, and the like, there is nothing due for them because they have no benefits for which compensation is deserved. If he usurps a slave girl and does not have intercourse with her, and a period passes during which intercourse was possible, he is not liable for her dowry, because the benefits of the vulva are only destroyed through utilization, unlike others, and because they cannot be estimated by time, so the passage of time is equivalent to their destruction, unlike a [standard] benefit.

Section: If he usurps food and feeds it to someone else, the owner may hold whichever of them he wishes liable, because the usurper stood between him and his property, and the consumer destroyed the property of another without his permission and took it from the hand of its owner(44) without the owner's permission. If the consumer was aware of the usurpation, the liability is settled upon him, because he destroyed the property of another without permission while knowing, without being deceived. Thus, if he holds the usurper liable, the usurper has recourse against him, but if he holds the consumer liable, he has no recourse against anyone. If the consumer did not know of the usurpation, we examine: If the usurper said to him, "Eat it, for it is my food," the liability is settled upon the usurper because of his admission that the liability remains upon him and that nothing is incumbent upon the consumer. If he did not say that, there are two narrations. The first: The liability is settled upon the consumer. This was also the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i in the