new (view); because he is liable for what he destroyed, he cannot have recourse against anyone. The second [view]: The liability is settled upon the usurper because he deceived the consumer and fed it to him on the condition that he would not be liable for it. This is the apparent view in the words of al-Khiraqi, due to his statement regarding one who buys a slave girl: "He has recourse for the dowry and everything he paid to the usurper." Whichever of the two is held liable and pays the penalty, he has no recourse against anyone, but if the owner exacts it from him, he may have recourse against the usurper. If he feeds the usurped item to its owner, and he eats it while knowing that it is his own food, the usurper is acquitted. If he does not know, and the usurper says to him, "Eat it, for it is my food," the liability is settled upon the usurper, as we have mentioned, even if he has evidence that it is the food of the one from whom it was usurped. If he does not say that, but rather presents it to him and says, "Eat it," or says, "I have gifted it to you," or remains silent, the apparent view of Ahmad is that he is not acquitted. This is because he said in the narration of al-Athram, regarding a man who has a claim against another, and he delivers it to him by way of charity or a gift without the other knowing. He said: "How is this? This one thinks it is(45) a gift." He says to him: "This is for you from me." This indicates that he is not acquitted here by the owner's eating of the food, all the more so; for there, he returned to him his possession and authority, while here, by merely presenting it to him, possession and authority have not returned to him, for he does not have the ability to dispose of it as he wishes, such as taking it, selling it, or giving it away as charity. Thus, the usurper is not acquitted, just as if he had fed it to his own beasts(46). It is derived that he is acquitted based on what has passed(47) regarding when he feeds it to someone other than the owner; for liability is settled upon the consumer in one of the two narrations, so he is acquitted here all the more so. This is the school of Abu Hanifa. If he gifts the usurped item to its owner, or presents it to him as a gift, the correct view is that he is acquitted, because he has delivered it to him in a valid, complete delivery, and the usurper's possession has ceased. The words of Ahmad, in the narration of al-Athram, pertain to when he gives it to him as a substitute for his due by way of a gift, and the owner accepts it in this manner, not by way of a substitute; thus, no exchange is established. Our issue, however, concerns when he returns the very item of his property to him, restoring the possession that he had removed. If he sells it to him and delivers it to him, he is acquitted of the liability, because he has taken possession of it through purchase, and purchase necessitates liability.