the damaged property, and he does not seek recourse for the value of what perished. Does each one of them seek recourse against the other for the rent? There are two reports on this. He does not have the right to demand from the buyer (19) anything regarding the rent except for the rent of the period it remained in his possession; because his possession only established itself over it at that time.

Fourth Section: The usurper is liable for the depreciation of the land, if the planting caused it to depreciate, or if it depreciated due to something else. Similarly, for every usurped substance, the usurper is liable for its depreciation if it is a settled depreciation, such as a garment that has become torn, a vessel that has shattered, food that has become infested with weevils, a building that has been ruined, and the like; for he must return it along with the indemnity (arsh) for the depreciation. This is because it is a depreciation that occurred in the hands of the usurper, so his liability for it became mandatory, just like the qafiz of food or the cubit of a garment. Al-Shafi'i held this opinion. Abu Hanifa said: If a man tears another's garment slightly, he takes its indemnity. If it is extensive, its owner has the choice between surrendering it and taking its value, or keeping it and taking its indemnity. A statement has been narrated from Ahmad that admits of this; for he said, in the report of Musa ibn Sa'id (20), regarding the garment: "If he wishes, he may tear the garment, and if he wishes, its equivalent." He means—and Allah knows best—if he wishes, he takes the indemnity for the tear (21). Its basis is that this is a crime that has destroyed most of its utility, so he is entitled to demand its value, just as if he had killed his sheep. The companions of Malik narrated from him that if one commits a crime against a substance and destroys the purpose of its owner therein, the victim has the choice: if he wishes, he seeks recourse for what it has depreciated, and if he wishes, he surrenders it and takes its value. Perhaps what is narrated from him regarding the cutting off of the judge's donkey's tail is based (22) on this; because he destroyed its purpose thereby, for he cannot ride it in the customary manner. Their argument is that he destroyed the intended utility of the commodity, so its value became incumbent upon him, as if he had destroyed the whole of it. Our position is that this is a crime against property whose indemnity is less than its total value, so he does not possess the right to demand its full value, just as if the tear were slight. Furthermore, it is a crime by which the value decreases, so it resembles a case where it did not destroy the purpose of its owner, and in the case of a sheep, its entirety is destroyed; for the consideration in destruction is the victimized object, not the purpose of its owner; because if it is not suitable for this, it may be suitable for something else.