If he bought it on his own liability and then paid the prices, Abu al-Khattab said: It is possible that the profit belongs to the usurper. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i in one of his two opinions; because he bought it for himself on his own liability, so the purchase was his, the profit was his, and he is liable for the replacement of the usurped property. This is the qiyas (analogical reasoning) of al-Khiraqi's statement. It is also possible that the profit belongs to the person from whom it was usurped, because it is the growth of his property, and therefore it is his, just as if he had bought it for him using the specific wealth. This is the apparent view of the madhhab. If a loss occurs, it is borne by the usurper because it is a deficiency that occurred in the usurped property. If he handed the wealth to someone to engage in mudaraba (profit-sharing partnership) with it, the ruling regarding the profit is as we have mentioned. The owner bears none of the worker's wages, because he did not authorize him to work with his wealth. As for the usurper, if the mudarib (the manager) was aware of the usurpation, he has no wage, because he is a transgressor through his work and no one deceived him. If he did not know of the usurpation, then the usurper is liable for his equivalent wage, because he employed him for work in exchange for compensation that he did not receive, so he became liable for his wage, just as in a corrupt contract.

867 - Issue: He said: "And whoever usurps something and is unable to return it, the usurper is liable for its value. If he becomes able to return it, he shall return it and take back the value."

Its general premise is that whoever usurps something and is unable to return it—like a slave who has run away or an animal that has strayed—the person from whom it was usurped has the right to demand its replacement. If he takes it, he assumes ownership of it, but the usurper does not own the usurped object; rather, whenever he becomes able to access it, he is obligated to return it, and he recovers the value that he had paid. Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: The owner is given a choice between waiting until the possibility of returning it occurs so he can recover it, or holding him liable for it, in which case his ownership of it ceases and it becomes the property of the usurper, and he is not obligated to return it, unless he had paid less than its value based on his statement under oath; because the owner acquired the replacement, so his ownership of the replaced object does not remain, just like in a sale. Furthermore, it is a liability regarding something for which ownership is transferred, so we transfer it, just as if he mixed his oil with his [the owner's] oil. Our view is that it is not valid for the usurped property to be owned through sale, so it is not valid through liability, just like destroyed property. Also, he paid for what he was unable to return due to it exiting his possession, so he does not own it by that, just as if the usurped object were a mudabbar (a slave granted post-mortem emancipation). This is not a case of combining the replacement and the replaced object; because he acquired the value due to the impediment (haylula), not by way of exchange. This is why if he returns the usurped property to him, he returns the value to him. It is not like the oil, because it is permissible to sell it, and because the owner's right to it was interrupted due to the permanent impossibility of returning it. Once this is established, whenever he becomes able to retrieve the usurped property, he shall return it, along with its separate and attached growth, and its equivalent rent up to the time he paid its replacement. Is he liable for its rent from the time he paid the replacement until he returns it? There are two views. The most correct of them is that he is not liable for it, because he became entitled to the benefit of the replacement which was put in its place, so he is not entitled to the benefit of it and what stood in its place, like all other things. The second [view] is that he has the right to the rent, because the object remains his property and the benefit is for him. It is incumbent upon the owner to return what he took as a replacement to the usurper, because he took it due to the impediment, and it has since ceased; thus, it is mandatory to return what he took because of it if it exists in its original form, and to return its attached increase, such as weight gain and the like, because it follows [the principal] in annulments, and this is an annulment. He is not obligated to return its separate increase, because it was produced while in his ownership and does not follow [the principal] in annulments, so it resembles the increase of an object sold and returned due to a defect. If the replacement is destroyed, he returns its equivalent or its value if it is not of the category of fungible goods.

Section: If he usurps juice and it becomes wine, he is liable for the equivalent of the juice, because it was destroyed in his hands. If it becomes vinegar, it is mandatory to return it, along with what was lost from the value of the juice, and he retrieves what he paid as its replacement.