Whatever he pays in terms of the value of the asset or its parts, he does not seek recourse for it from anyone, because the destruction occurred while in his possession and no one deceived him. The same applies to the rent for the duration of his stay in his possession, and the compensation for its depreciation, if any occurred. If he did not know, the owner may hold either of them liable. If he holds the donee liable, he seeks recourse from the donor for the value of the asset and its parts, because he deceived him. Abu Hanifa said: Whichever of them is held liable, he may not seek recourse from the other. Our view is that the donee entered into the contract with the expectation that the asset would be surrendered to him, so it is required that he seeks recourse for what he paid in terms of its value, just like the value of offspring, for he agreed with us on the recourse for its guarantee. As for the rent, dower, and compensation for the loss of virginity, does the donee seek recourse for them from the donor? There are two views. If he holds the donor liable, does he seek recourse for it from the donee? There are two views.

Section: The disposals of the usurper are like the disposals of a fawduli (unauthorized agent), according to the two accounts we mentioned. One of them is their invalidity, and the second is their validity, contingent upon the permission of the owner. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that regarding the legal disposals of the usurper, there is an account that they occur as valid, and this applies equally to acts of worship, such as purification, prayer, zakat, and Hajj, or contracts, such as sale and lease and marriage. This should be restricted, in the case of contracts, to that which the owner has not invalidated. As for what the owner has chosen to invalidate and has taken back the object of the contract, we know of no disagreement. As for that which the owner has not reached, the argument for its validation is that the usurper's tenure is long and his disposals are frequent; therefore, ruling them invalid would cause much harm, and the harm might revert to the owner, for a ruling of validity implies that the profit belongs to the owner, and the compensation along with its growth and increase belongs to him, whereas ruling it invalid prevents that.

Section: If he usurps monetary values and engages in trade with them, or usurps merchandise and sells it and engages in trade with its price, our companions said: The profit belongs to the owner, and the purchased goods are for him. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far and Abu al-Khattab said: If the purchase was made with the specific wealth (the usurped money itself), then the profit belongs to the owner. Al-Sharif said: It is also reported from Ahmad that he gives it away in charity. If