therefor. He is entitled to the wages for his work based on the customary rate (ajr al-mithl) from the usurper, because [the usurper] deceived him and employed him, so the wage became incumbent upon him, just as if he had usurped a silver ingot and hired someone to strike it into dirhams. If he dried the fruit in the sun and it did not diminish in value, its owner takes it; if it diminished, its owner is entitled to the indemnity for its reduction, and he may claim it back from whomever he wishes between them, though the liability settles upon the usurper. If it is claimed by rightful ownership after they have divided and consumed it, the owner may hold either one of them liable. If he holds the usurper liable, he may hold him liable for the entirety, or he may hold him liable only for his share, and hold the worker liable for his [the worker's] share, because the usurper is the cause of the worker's possession, so the guarantee for everything becomes incumbent upon him. If he holds him liable for the entirety, he [the usurper] then claims back from the worker the value of his share, because the destruction occurred in the worker's possession, so the liability settles upon him, and the worker claims back from the usurper his customary wage. It is possible [to argue] that the usurper does not claim anything back from the worker because he deceived him, and thus does not claim back from him, just as if one fed a person something and said to him: "Eat it, for it is my food," then it became clear that it was usurped. If he holds the worker liable, it is possible [to argue] that he only holds him liable for his share exclusively, because he did not take possession of all the fruit; rather, he was merely watching over it and safeguarding it, so liability for it is not incumbent upon him as long as he has not taken possession of it. It is also possible [to argue] that he may hold him liable for the entirety, because his possession was established over the entirety by observation without right. If he holds him liable for the entirety, the worker claims back from the usurper the value of his share of it and his customary wage. If he holds each of them liable for what came into their possession, the worker claims back from the usurper his customary wage only. If the fruit perished while on its trees, or after harvesting but before division, whoever considers the worker to be in possession of it by virtue of his control over the orchard says: The liability for it is incumbent upon him. And whoever says: He is not in possession of it except by taking his share of it, says: Liability is not incumbent upon him, and it remains upon the usurper.