What is the ruling regarding damage that severely impairs the intended use of a usurped item?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Usurpation
Primary text
Some narrations attributed to Ahmad suggest that if a garment is significantly damaged, the owner may choose between demanding a replacement (like for like) or accepting the compensation (*arsh*) for the damage. This is reasoned on the basis that the injury has destroyed most of the intended utility, allowing the owner to demand the full value, similar to the case of killing a sheep. The Malikis hold that if an injury is inflicted upon an object such that it frustrates the owner's specific purpose for it, the injured party has the choice to either claim compensation for the diminution in value or surrender the object and take its full value. The basis for this view is that the intended use of the commodity was destroyed, necessitating the full value, akin to total destruction.
Supporting text
The prevailing view maintains that since the damage constitutes an injury resulting only in partial diminution of value, the owner is only entitled to the corresponding compensation (*arsh*), not the full value, analogous to minor damage. Furthermore, the consideration in assessing damage rests on the material object itself, not solely on the specific purpose intended by the owner, as the object might be useful for other purposes if the primary intended use is negated.