This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. It is the most correct position, if Allah the Exalted wills, because animals are not fungible goods (mithli), so they are guaranteed by their value, like other goods with assessed value (mutaqawwamat). Furthermore, had he destroyed it, he would have been liable for its value. We have mentioned the reasoning for these opinions elsewhere. Al-Khiraqi’s statement: "He reverts with all of that upon the usurper," refers to the dowry and what he paid as ransom for the children. This is because the buyer entered into the transaction with the expectation that the children would be delivered to him and that he would have the right to sexual intercourse without compensation. When this was not secured for him, the seller had deceived him, so he seeks recourse against him for those costs. As for the slave woman, when he returns her, he does not seek recourse for her substitute (value), because she is the property of the person from whom she was usurped, and she has returned to him, but he does seek recourse against the usurper for the price he took from him. If she had stayed with him for a period for which there is a standard rent for that duration, he is liable for her rent. If he usurped her while she was a virgin, he is liable for the indemnity for the loss of her virginity. If childbirth or something else caused a decrease in her value, he is liable for the indemnity of that decrease. If she perished in his possession, he is liable for her value. Every liability that becomes due upon the buyer, the person from whom she was usurped has the right to seek recourse for it from whichever of the two he wishes, because the possession of the usurper is the cause of the buyer's possession. Whatever became due upon the usurper—such as the rent for the period she was in his possession or a decrease in value that occurred while with him—he [the buyer] seeks recourse for that against the usurper alone, because that occurred prior to the buyer's possession. If the owner demands from the buyer what became due during his possession and takes it from him, and the buyer wishes to seek recourse against the usurper for it, you must consider: if the buyer knew at the time of purchase that she was usurped, he may not seek recourse for anything, because the cause of liability occurred in his possession without deception. If he did not know, this falls into three categories: one category is that for which he does not seek recourse, which is her value if she perished in his possession, the indemnity for her virginity, and the substitute for any of her limbs, because he entered into the transaction with the seller with the understanding that he would be liable for that in exchange for the price; once he is liable for it, he does not seek recourse. A second category is that for which he does seek recourse, which is the substitute for the child if she gives birth to one from him, because he entered into the contract with him with the understanding that the child would not be his liability, and no destruction was caused by his hand; rather, the Law caused the destruction through the ruling of the usurper's sale to him, and likewise for the decrease in value due to childbirth. A third category is that regarding which there is disagreement: the dowry of her likeness and the rent for her usufruct. May he seek recourse for this against the usurper? There are two reports: