The owner is not obligated to accept that; for it is an exchange, so he is not compelled to it, like a sale. If the owner says, "Leave it for me in the place to which you transported it," the usurper does not have the right to return it, because he (the owner) waived a right from him, so it lapses even if he does not accept it, just as if he had absolved him of his debt. If he says, "Return it to me to part of the road," he is obligated to do so, because the entire distance is binding upon him, so the requested part of it is binding, and what he waived lapses from him. If he requests him to carry it to another place not on the path of return, the usurper is not obligated to do so, whether it is closer than the place to which he is required to return it or not; because it is an exchange. If he says, "Leave it in its place, and give me the rental for its return," he is not compelled to comply with his request for that reason. Whatever they agree upon regarding that is permissible; because the right belongs to both of them, and does not go beyond them.

Section: If he usurps something and occupies it with his own property, such as thread with which he sewed a garment or similar, or a stone upon which he built, we examine the case. If the thread wears out, or the stone breaks, or it was wood in its place and it perished, he does not take it by returning it, and its value becomes obligatory; because it has become perished, so its value is obligatory. If it remains as it is, he is obligated to return it, even if the building is dismantled and the garment is separated. This is the opinion of Malik and Al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It is not obligatory to return the wood and the stone; because it has become subservient to his property, and he would suffer harm by dismantling it, so returning it is not obligatory, just as if he usurped thread and sewed the wound of his slave with it. Our argument is that it is a usurped item whose return is possible, and it is permissible for him, so it is obligatory, just as if he had moved the item far away. It is not like the thread for which one fears for the slave if it is removed, because it is not permissible for him to return that, due to the destruction of the human life involved in it. And because his need for that permits him to take it initially, unlike building. If he sewed an animal's wound with the thread, that falls into three categories: First, that he sews the wound of an animal that has no sanctity, such as an apostate, a pig, or a rabid dog; then it is obligatory to remove and return it, because it does not involve causing the loss of something with sanctity, so it is similar to if he had sewed a garment with it. Second, that he sews the wound of an animal that has sanctity and is not permissible to eat, such as a human; if one fears death or delayed healing upon its removal, it is not obligatory to remove it, because the animal has a more emphasized sanctity than the item of wealth, and for this reason, it is permissible for him to take the wealth of another to preserve his life, and to destroy wealth to maintain it, which is what he eats. Similarly, animals whose meat is not eaten, such as a mule and the domestic donkey.