its value at the time it was increased, because if he had returned it in a diminished state, he would have been obligated to pay the indemnity (arsh) for its decrease, which is a substitute for the increase. So if he guarantees the increase while returning it, he guarantees it upon its destruction. If the difference is due to price fluctuations, he does not guarantee the increase, because the decrease in value due to that is not guaranteed when the physical item is returned, so it is not guaranteed when it is destroyed. Al-Qadi interpreted the statement of Al-Khiraqi as applying to cases where the value differed due to price fluctuations. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i, because the higher of the two values for the usurped item belongs to the victim of the usurpation; therefore, when returning the item is impossible, he guarantees its value, just as he would with its value on the day of destruction, and the value is only dropped upon the return of the item itself. The first [school's] doctrine holds that for the reasons we mentioned, this increase differs from the increase in characteristics, because the latter is guaranteed when the physical object is returned, and thus [it is guaranteed] when it is destroyed; whereas this [price fluctuation] is not guaranteed when the physical object is returned, and thus [it is not guaranteed] when it is destroyed. Their argument that it was dropped upon the return of the physical object is invalid, because if it were binding, it would not have been dropped upon return, just like an increase in fatness or learning. Al-Qadi said: "I have not found any narration from Ahmad that it is guaranteed at the higher of the two values due to price fluctuations." According to this, it is guaranteed at its value on the day of destruction. This was narrated by the group from Ahmad. Another narration from him states that it is guaranteed at its value on the day of usurpation. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and Malik, because it is the time at which he removed the owner's hand from it, so the value at that time becomes binding upon him, just as if he had destroyed it. Our view is that the value only becomes fixed in the liability (dhimma) at the time of destruction; for before that, the obligation was to return the physical object itself, not its value. Thus, that state is taken into account, as if its value had not differed. What they mentioned is invalid, because holding onto the usurped object is [a form of] usurpation, as it is an act where he is prohibited from keeping it in any state. Regarding what was reported from Ahmad about considering the value on the day of usurpation, Al-Khallal said: "Ahmad was hesitant about it," as if he returned to his former view.