Some of the companions of Al-Shafi’i said: He returns the vinegar and does not retrieve the value, because the juice was destroyed by its fermentation, so liability for it became binding even if it returned to being vinegar, just as if a fat slave girl became thin then her fatness returned; he returns her and the compensation for her deficiency. Our view is that the vinegar is the very same substance as the juice; its attribute changed, and he has returned it, so he is entitled to retrieve what he paid as a replacement for it, just as if he usurped it and then a usurper usurped it from him and then returned it to him, and as if he usurped a lamb and it became a ram. As for the earlier fatness, we dispute it, and even if we were to concede it, the latter is not the former, unlike our current issue.

Section: If he usurps something in one land, then meets the owner in another land and is demanded to return it, you must consider: If it is currency, he is obligated to pay it to him, because currencies are the values of things, so the difference in their value [in different places] does not matter. If it is other than that and it is from the category of fungible goods, and its value is the same in both lands, or its value in the land of usurpation is greater, he is obligated to perform its equivalent, because there is no harm to him. Likewise, if its value is different but there is no cost for its transport, the owner may demand its equivalent, because it is possible to return the equivalent without any harm affecting the usurper. But if there is a cost for its transport, and its value in the land where he usurped it is lower, then he is not obligated to return it or its equivalent, because we do not charge him with the cost of transport to a land where he is not required to deliver it. The victim of the usurpation has the choice between waiting until he receives it in his land, or demanding its value immediately in the land where he usurped it, because the return of the object or its equivalent has become impossible. If it is of the category of non-fungibles, the victim may demand its value in the land where he usurped it. Whenever he is able to return the specific usurped object, he returns it and retrieves its replacement, according to what we have mentioned in the issue before this one.

868 - Issue: He said: (And if he usurped her while she was pregnant, and she gave birth while in his possession, then the child died, her master takes her back and the value of her child, at the highest [price] its value reached). The discussion of this issue involves two matters: the first of which is that when he usurps a pregnant animal,