The ruling on the usurper’s intention to dye the usurped garment as a ruse against its owner

The questioner : May Allah bless you. The statement that if the garment is washed and then dyed, the dyeing is specifically for him, yes, this may open the door. He says, “Wash the garment and dye it,” meaning if the [original color] is gone, it is gone, but if the dye is returned, it is torment.

The Shaykh : It goes back to looking at the usurper’s intention. If we know that the usurper intends to spoil it for its owner so as to force him to compensate, the judge should prevent this.

The questioner : Shaykh, the usurper is transgressing in the taking, so why must the right be given to him while he is transgressing?

The Shaykh : No, because this man is in a state of transgression in any case, but the actual substance of his wealth exists. The actual substance of his wealth exists. What he did does not delay [the ruling]. We do not know [the ruling] unless we know that he is transgressing, meaning that we know this man intended to spoil the garment for its owner.