Section: If the usurped item is of the type that has equivalent counterparts (mithliyyat) and it is destroyed, one is obligated to return its equivalent. If the equivalent is unavailable, its value is required as of the day the equivalent became unavailable. Al-Qadi said: Its value as of the day of taking possession of the substitute is required, because the obligation is the equivalent up until the time of taking possession of the substitute, evidenced by the fact that if the equivalent were found after it had been missing, the obligation would be the [equivalent] itself, not the value. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and most of the companions of Al-Shafi'i said: Its value as of the day of the judicial ruling is required, because the value does not transfer into his liability except when the judge rules upon it. Our view is that the value becomes mandatory in the liability (dhimma) at the time the equivalent becomes unavailable, so the value at that time is considered, just as with the destruction of an item that has no equivalent (mutaqawwam). The evidence for its mandatory nature at that time is that he is entitled to demand it and collect it, and it becomes incumbent upon the usurper to pay it, and this does not negate the [original] obligation of the equivalent; for it is something he is unable to perform, and legal obligation entails capacity. Furthermore, he is not entitled to demand the equivalent nor collect it, and it is not incumbent upon the other party to deliver it, so it is not a mandatory obligation, as in the case of the judicial ruling. As for when he becomes capable of [providing] the equivalent after it was unavailable, its obligation returns because it is the original [obligation] for which he became capable before the delivery of the substitute, so it is similar to the capability to obtain water after performing tayammum. For this reason, if he becomes capable of it after the judicial ruling but before collection, the owner is entitled to demand it and take it. It has been narrated from Ahmad regarding a man who took from another man a number of pounds of such-and-such: He must give it to him at the price of the day he took it, not the day he holds him to account. Likewise, it is narrated from him regarding a grocer's wares: he is liable for the value on the day of taking. This indicates that the value is considered as of the day of usurpation. We have already mentioned this in the section before this. It is possible to differentiate between this and usurpation by noting that what he took in this case was with the permission of its owner; he came to own it and it became permissible for him to dispose of it, so its value is fixed as of the day he came to own it. What became fixed in his liability did not change by the change in the value of what he took because he came to own it, whereas the usurped item is property of the one from whom it was usurped, and the obligation is its return, not its value. Its value is only fixed in the liability on the day of its destruction or the unavailability of its equivalent, so the value is considered at that time and changes by its change before that. As for if the usurped item remains and its return is impossible, and we have required the return of its value, then he may demand its value on the day of taking possession of it, because the value was not fixed in the liability before that, and for this reason he is given the choice between taking it and demanding it, or waiting until