nothing for the usurper regarding its fodder. Ahmad said, regarding a bird that came to a people's house and hatched [eggs] in their possession: He must return its chicks to the owners of the bird, and the usurper has no claim to anything for what he did. If he usurps a sheep and breeds a ram with it, the offspring belongs to the owner of the sheep because it is from its growth. If he usurps a ram and breeds it with his [the usurper's] sheep, the offspring belongs to the owner of the sheep because it follows the mother, and he is entitled to no fee because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the hiring of the stud ram. If the mating caused depreciation to the [usurped] animal, he is liable for its depreciation.

Section: If one usurps dinars or dirhams from a man and mixes them with similar ones belonging to another, and they become indistinguishable, they become partners. Abu Hanifa said: The usurper owns them, and he is liable for an indemnity of their equivalent to both [the original owners]. If he mixes them with similar ones from his own property, he owns them, because it has become impossible to deliver them in their original form, so it resembles the case where they were destroyed. Our view is that it is an act performed upon usurped property in a way of aggression that did not deplete its monetary value, so the ownership of its owner did not cease, just like the slaughtering of a sheep.

Section: If one usurps a slave and he hunts game or earns something, it belongs to his master. If he usurps a predatory animal such as a cheetah or a falcon, and hunts with it, the game belongs to its [the animal's] owner, because it is from the earnings of his property, so it resembles the earnings of a slave. It is possible that it belongs to the usurper, because he is the one who hunted, and the predatory animal is a tool for him, which is why it is sufficient to say the name of Allah when sending the predator. If he usurps a bow, an arrow, or a net and hunts with it, there are two views: One is that it belongs to the owner of the bow, arrow, or net, because it was obtained through them, so it resembles the growth of his property and the earnings of his slave. The second is that it belongs to the usurper, because the hunt resulted from his action, and these are tools, so it resembles the case where he slaughtered [an animal] with someone else's knife. If we say: It belongs to the usurper, then he owes the fee for all of that for the duration it remained in his hands, if there is a fee for it. If we say: It belongs to the owner, he is not entitled to a fee during the period of his hunting according to one of the two views, because the fee is in exchange for its benefits, and its benefits during this period return to its owner, so he is not entitled to compensation from someone else, just as if he had sown someone else's land and the owner took the crop and compensated him for his expenses. The second [view] is that he owes a fee for its equivalent, because he made use of its benefits, resembling the case where he did not hunt anything at all.

865 - Issue; He said: (Whoever usurps a slave woman, has intercourse with her, and she bears him a child, the prescribed penalty [Hadd] is required of him, and her master takes her, her children, and the dowry of her peer [Mahr al-Mithl]).

To summarize: If the usurper has intercourse with the usurped slave woman, he is an adulterer, because she is not his wife nor a slave girl owned by him. If he was aware of the prohibition, the penalty for adultery is required of him, because he has no ownership nor even a semblance of ownership, and he owes the dowry of her peer, whether she was coerced or willing. Al-Shafi'i said: There is no dowry for the willing woman, because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the earnings of a prostitute. Our view is that this is a right of the master, so it does not lapse by her willingness, just as if she gave permission for her hand to be cut. Furthermore, it is a right that becomes due to the master even if she were coerced, so it is due even if she is willing, just like the fee for her benefits, and the report is interpreted as applying to a free woman. The indemnity for her virginity [Arsh] is also due, because it is compensation for a part of her. It is possible that it is not due, because the dowry of a virgin includes the indemnity for virginity; that is why it usually exceeds the dowry of a non-virgin on account of what it entails in terms of the loss of virginity. If she becomes pregnant, the child is owned by her master, because it is from her growth and her parts, and his lineage is not established with the one who had intercourse with her, because it is from adultery. If she delivers the child alive, it must be returned along with her. If she miscarries it dead, there is no liability, because we do not know if it was alive prior to that. This is the opinion of the Qadi, and it is the view apparent from the Shafi'i school according to his followers. [Qadi Abu al-Husayn] said: Liability is due for its value if it were alive. Al-Shafi'i stated this explicitly, because he is liable for it if it miscarried due to his striking her, and what is liable by destruction is liable by...