If he lends it to him, he is also acquitted for that reason. If he lends it to him for temporary use (ariyah), he is also acquitted because the ariyah necessitates liability. If he deposits it with him, rents it to him, mortgages it to him, or entrusts it to him to shorten or notify him, he is not acquitted of liability unless he is aware of the situation; for his authority has not returned to him; he merely took possession of it as a trust. Some of our companions said: He is acquitted, because it returned to his hand and authority. This is one of the two views among the companions of al-Shafi'i. The first is more appropriate; for if he allowed him to use it and he ate it, he would not be acquitted, so this is even more so.

Section: If the owner and the usurper differ regarding the value of the usurped item, and neither has evidence, the statement is that of the usurper; because the basic principle is the freedom of his liability, so he is not compelled to pay anything unless he (the owner) establishes a proof against him, just as if he claimed a debt against him and he admitted to part of it. The same applies if the owner says: "It was a scribe," or, "It had a skill," and the usurper denies it; the statement is his (the usurper's) likewise. If the evidence testifies for him (the owner) regarding the attribute, it is established. If the usurper says: "It had a scar (sil'ah), an extra dye, or a defect," and the owner denies it, the statement is his (the owner's); because the basic principle is the absence of that, and the statement is that of the usurper regarding its value in any case. If they differ after the increase in the value of the usurped item regarding the time of its increase, and the owner says: "It increased before it was destroyed," and the usurper says: "The value of the item only increased after it was destroyed," the statement is that of the usurper; because the basic principle is the freedom of his liability. If we observe the slave to be defective, and the usurper says: "It was defective before I usurped it," and the owner says: "It became defective while with you," the statement is that of the usurper; because he is the one liable, and because the apparent state is that the attributes of the slave did not change. If he usurped wine from him, then its owner says: "It turned into vinegar while with you," and the usurper denies it, the statement is his (the usurper's); because the basic principle is its remaining as it was, and the freedom of liability. If they differ regarding the return of the usurped item, or the return of its equivalent or its value, the statement is that of the owner; because the basic principle is the absence of that, and that his liability remains occupied with it. If they differ regarding its destruction, and the usurper claims it while the owner denies it, the statement is that of the usurper; because he is more knowledgeable about that, and it is difficult to establish evidence against him. Once he swears an oath, the owner may demand its replacement; because returning the item itself has become impossible, so its replacement becomes binding, as if he usurped a slave and he fled. It is said: He has no right to demand the replacement, because he (the usurper) does not claim it. If he says: "You usurped a new (slave) from me," and he says: "Rather, it was an old one," the statement is that of the usurper; because the basic principle is that the new one was not incumbent, and the owner may demand the old one; because it is less than his right.