and there is no way to abandon it, so it is permitted to take what repels this necessity, unlike a debt. To the point that we would say: if the maintenance had already passed, she would not have been able to take it, and if another debt became due to her from him, she would not be able to take it. According to this, if he takes something, he is obligated to return it if it remains. If it has been destroyed, he must pay an equivalent if it is a fungible item, or its value if it is a non-fungible (specific) item. If it is of the same genus as his debt, they engage in set-off (taqass), and both are extinguished, according to the analogy of the madhhab. If it is of a different genus, he is obligated to pay compensation for it. Those of our companions who permitted taking it have said: If he finds the genus of his right, it is permissible for him to take from it to the amount of his right, without any excess, and he is not permitted to take from a different genus while he has the ability to take it [from its own genus]. If he does not find anything except from a different genus, it is possible that his acquiring it is not permitted, because it is not permissible for him to sell it to himself, and this constitutes selling it to himself, which carries a suspicion of wrongdoing. It is also possible that it is permissible for him, just as they said: The pawned item (rahn) may be maintained—if it is a riding animal or a milking animal, it may be ridden or milked to the amount of the maintenance, and this is of a different genus. The companions of al-Shafi'i differed on this: some permitted this for him, while others said: He should collude with a man to claim a debt against him before the judge, then he (the debtor) admits to him the ownership of the item he took, so the one against whom the claim is made refrains from paying the debt, so that the judge may sell the seized item and deliver it to him.

Section: If a person claims a right against another person and produces two witnesses, but the judge does not know their uprightness ('adalah), and he requests the imprisonment of his opponent until the uprightness of his witnesses is proven, he is granted that. This is because the outward state of Muslims is uprightness, and because the one against the debtor has already brought his evidence, and only that which is incumbent upon the judge remains, which is the investigation into the uprightness of the witnesses. If he produces one witness and asks for the imprisonment of his opponent so that he may produce another witness, and the right is one that cannot be proven except by two witnesses, the defendant shall not be imprisoned, because the evidence is not complete, and imprisonment is a form of punishment, so it cannot be directed against him without the completion of the evidence. If the right is one that is proven by a witness and an oath, there are two views: One of them is that he is imprisoned for his sake, because a single witness is proof in financial matters,