the usurped asset. Likewise, if he takes the usurped asset without its indemnity, then the defect ceases before he takes its indemnity, his liability does not lapse because of that.

Section: The increases of a usurped asset while in the usurper's possession are guaranteed under the liability of usurpation, such as obesity, learning a trade, and so forth, as well as the fruit of a tree, and the offspring of an animal. Whenever any part of it is destroyed in the hands of the usurper, he is liable for it, regardless of whether it is destroyed separately or destroyed along with its original source. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: The liability for the increases of a usurped asset is not required unless he is asked for them and refuses to deliver them, because they are not themselves usurped, so their liability is not required, similar to a deposit (wadi'a). The evidence for it not being usurpation is that it is a prohibited act, and his maintaining control over these increases is not by his own act; because it is built upon the existence of the increases in his hands, and their existence is not a prohibited act on his part. Our position is that it is the property of the one from whom it was usurped, which came into [the hands of the usurper] by way of usurpation, so he is liable for it upon its destruction, just like the original. As for their statement that his exercising control is not his own act, it is not correct, because by retaining the mother, he caused the exercise of control over these increases, and exercising control over the mother is prohibited.

Section: The usurper is not liable for a decrease in value resulting from price fluctuations. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the view of the majority of scholars. It was narrated from Abu Thawr that he is liable for it, because he is liable for it if the asset itself is destroyed, so it becomes incumbent upon him when he returns it, just like obesity. Our position is that he returned the asset in its state, with no loss to its substance or attributes, so nothing is incumbent upon him, just as if it had not decreased. We do not concede that he is liable for it [price fluctuation] even if the asset is destroyed; and if we were to concede it, it would be because the value of the asset became due at its highest price, so it was factored into the valuation, unlike when he returns it; for then the value is not due. It differs from obesity, for that is part of the substance of the usurped asset, and knowledge of a trade is an attribute of it; whereas here, neither substance nor attribute has been lost. Furthermore, the one from whom the asset was usurped has no right to the value while the asset itself remains, for his right is in the asset, and it remains entirely as it was.