its watery nature which is intended to be lost, and for this reason its sweetness increases and its value grows, so no guarantee is mandatory for it, just like the fatness of a slave which decreases his value. The second [view] is that a guarantee is mandatory because it is a defined substitute, so it is like oil when he boils it. If both the entity and the value decrease, it is mandatory in the case of oil and the like to guarantee both decreases, because each one of them is independently guaranteed, so it is the same when they combine. That is like if there were a ratl of oil whose value is one dirham, and he boiled it, so one-third of it was lost and the value of the remainder became half a dirham; he owes one-third of a ratl and one-sixth of a dirham. If the value of the remainder was two-thirds of a dirham, he does not owe more [than one-third of a ratl; because the value of the remainder did not decrease. If he castrated the slave and his value decreased, he does not owe more] (36) than the guarantee for his testicles, because that is in the position of one who gouged out his eyes. Is it mandatory in the case of juice [to guarantee] what decreased from the value, or is it like oil? There are two views.

Section: If he usurped a slave and he became fat such that his value decreased, or he was a youth and became an old man, or the slave girl was nubile and her breasts fell, the indemnity (arsh) for the decrease is mandatory. We know of no disagreement regarding this. If the slave was beardless and his beard grew such that his value decreased, the guarantee of his decrease is mandatory. Ash-Shafi'i stated this. Abu Hanifa said: Its guarantee is not mandatory because that which is lost is not intended with a valid intention, so it is like forbidden craftsmanship. Our view is that it decreased in value due to the change (37) of its attribute, so he guarantees it, like the rest of the scenarios.

Section: If the usurped property decreased with a non-permanent decrease, such as food that became wet and its spoilage was feared, or it became moldy and its destruction was anticipated, then he is liable for the guarantee of its decrease. This is what is explicitly stated by Ash-Shafi'i. He has another opinion: that he does not guarantee its decrease. Al-Qadi (38) said: He is liable for its substitute because the amount of its decrease is not known, and whenever it decreases by something, he guarantees it because it relates to the cause existing in the hand of the usurper, so it is as if it is existing in his hand. Abu al-Khattab said: Its owner chooses between taking its substitute, or leaving it until its spoilage is established,