If he says, 'This house belongs to Zayd, no, rather it belongs to Amr,' or if Zayd claims a specific thing from the estate of a deceased person and his son validates it, then Amr claims it and he validates it, judgment is given for it to Zayd, and he must pay compensation for it to Amr. This is the apparent view in one of the two statements of al-Shafi'i. He said in the other: 'He does not pay anything to Amr,' which is the position of Abu Hanifa, because he acknowledged for him what must be acknowledged, and the judgment only prevented his acceptance of it, which does not necessitate a guarantee. Our argument is that he intervened between Amr and his property for which he acknowledged him by his acknowledgment for another, so he became liable for its payment, just as if two men testified against another regarding the manumission of his slave, then they retracted the testimony, or as if he threw it into the sea and then acknowledged it. If he says, 'I usurped this house from Zayd, no, rather from Amr,' or 'I usurped it from Zayd, and Zayd usurped it from Amr,' it is adjudged to Zayd, he is required to deliver it to him, and he pays compensation for it to Amr. This is what Abu Hanifa said, and it is the manifest position of the school of al-Shafi'i. He said in the other: 'He does not guarantee,' for the reason previously stated. Our argument is that he acknowledged the usurpation which necessitates the guarantee and the return to the one from whom it was usurped, then he did not return what he acknowledged usurping, so he became liable for its guarantee, just as if it had perished by the act of God Almighty. Ahmad said, in a narration by Ibn Mansur, regarding a man who said to another, 'I entrusted this garment to you,' and he said, 'You spoke the truth,' then said, 'Another man entrusted it to me.' The garment is for the first, and he pays its value to the other. There is no difference in this section between whether his acknowledgment is with connected or disconnected speech.

Section: If he says, 'I usurped this house from Zayd, and its ownership belongs to Amr,' he is required to hand it over to Zayd because of his acknowledgment to him that it was in his possession, and this entails it being in his possession rightfully, and its ownership belonging to Amr does not contradict that, because it is possible that it is in Zayd's possession through a lease, loan, or bequest. He does not pay anything to Amr because there was no negligence on his part. This differs from the case where he says, 'This house is for Zayd, no, rather for Amr,' because he acknowledged for the second what he acknowledged for the first, so the second was a retraction of the first due to their contradiction, whereas here there is no contradiction between his two acknowledgments. If he says, 'Its ownership is for Amr, and I usurped it from Zayd.'