What is the basis for compelling the usurper to pay rent for usufruct?

Primary text

The basis for liability is that anything guaranteed by the usurper upon destruction in a void contract should also be guaranteed merely by its possession, similar to tangible assets. Furthermore, he consumed a valued asset, necessitating a guarantee like the asset itself. Alternatively, it is a valued usurped asset, thus demanding a guarantee like the tangible item. The Hadith cited against liability pertains to sales contracts and does not apply to the usurper, who is prohibited from benefiting from the usurped item by consensus. It does not resemble fornication because the woman consents to the destruction of her usufruct without compensation and without a contract mandating compensation, making it akin to loaning a house. If she were coerced, the husband's *mahr* (dower) would be due.