seven, and the dye diminished so that it became worth three, and the value of the garment when dyed was ten, it is shared between them: seven for the owner of the garment and three for the owner of the dye. If it was worth twelve, it is divided between them: one-half and one-fifth of it for the owner of the garment, and one-fifth and one-tenth for the usurper. If the situation is reversed, such that the garment is worth three in the market and the dye is worth seven, the division is reversed; the owner of the dye here receives what the owner of the garment had in the previous case, and the owner of the garment receives the equivalent of what the owner of the dye had, because an increase in price is not guaranteed.

If the usurper wishes to remove the dye, our companions have said: He may do so, whether it harms the garment or not, and he is liable for the reduction in the garment if it decreases. Al-Shafi'i also held this view, because it is an item of his own property, so he has the right to take it, just as if he had planted in someone else's land. Our companions did not distinguish between what of his dye is destroyed by removal and what is not. It should be said: that which is destroyed by removal, he does not have the right to remove; because it is foolishness (safah). The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that he is not permitted to remove it if the garment is harmed by its removal; because he said regarding a buyer who builds or plants on land subject to pre-emption (shuf'a): He may take it, provided there is no harm in taking it. Abu Hanifa said: He does not have the right to take it; because it causes harm to the usurped garment, so he is not empowered to do so, like cutting a piece from it, and it is different from removing plantings; because the harm is slight, and the benefit of removing roots from the ground is achieved by it.

If the one from whom it was usurped chooses to have the dye removed, there are two views: One is that he has the right to compel the usurper to do so, just as he has the right to compel him to remove a tree from his land. This is because he occupied his property with his own property in a way that its separation was possible, so he is obligated to separate it, even if the usurper is harmed, like removing trees. The usurper is liable for the reduction in the garment and the cost of removal, just as he is liable for that in the case of land. The second is that he does not have the right to compel him to do so, nor is he permitted to remove it; because the dye is destroyed upon extraction, and it was possible to deliver the right to its rightful owner without it, through sale, so he is not compelled to remove it, like removing crops from land. It differs from trees, as they are not ruined by removal. The Qadi said: This is the apparent meaning of the words of Ahmad, and perhaps he derived that from the statement of Ahmad regarding crops. This is contrary to crops, because they have an endpoint they reach, and the owner of the land may take them for their cost, so he is not prevented from regaining his land immediately, unlike dye, for it has no endpoint other than the destruction of the garment, so it is more similar to trees in the land. The obligation of removal in the case of trees is not limited to what is not destroyed, for he is compelled to remove what is destroyed and what is not. The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views similar to these.

If the owner of the garment offers the value of the dye to the usurper so that he may own it, he is not compelled to accept it; because this is compelling him to sell his property, so he is not compelled to do so, just as if he offered him the value of the plantings. It is possible that he is compelled to do so if he does not remove it, by analogy to trees, building on land subject to pre-emption, lent property, and in usurped land if the usurper does not remove it; and because it is a matter through which the dispute is resolved, and one of them is rid of the other without harm, so he is compelled to do so, as we have mentioned. If the usurper offers the value of the garment to its owner so that he may own it, he is not compelled to do so, just as if the owner of the plantings offered the value of the land to its owner in these situations. If the usurper gifts the dye to the owner of the garment, is he required to accept it? There are two views: One is that he is required to; because the dye has become one of the qualities of the essence, so it is like an increase in quality in a forward sale (salam). The second is that he is not compelled; because the dye is an essence that can be separated, so he is not compelled to accept it. The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that he is compelled; because he said regarding the dowry (sadaq): If it was a garment and he dyed it, and you offered him half of it dyed, he is required to accept it. If the owner wishes to sell the garment, and the usurper refuses, he has the right to sell it; because it is his property, so the usurper does not have the right to prevent him from selling his own property due to his transgression. If the usurper wishes to sell it, the owner is not compelled to sell it; because it is