—is sixty thousand as a single lot. If he sells one for twenty thousand, then necessarily the remaining two are worth forty thousand, and the buyer suffers no harm.

This differs from the case where he buys a sack of wheat for ninety dirhams and then sells one-third of it for thirty dirhams. In that case, what remains may be worth sixty, or it may be worth more. Thus, if the price is apportioned among the goods according to their value, and he sells part of them without disclosing it, the buyer has the option. But if it is apportioned by units, there is no harm in selling the remainder for its share of the price without informing the buyer. This distinction is closer to what is correct, because the buyer suffers no harm whatsoever.

As for the apparent meaning of the author’s words, it is that the buyer has the option in all cases, whether the price is apportioned among the goods by units or according to value.

If someone asks: How can he have the option?

We say: Because people distinguish between retail sales and wholesale sales. A person may increase the price in wholesale or in retail, according to demand. From this we recognize the scholars’ concern—may Allah have mercy on them—for honesty in buying and selling. Otherwise, some people might say: Since he sold half for half the price, why should this person’s share not be considered fifty? Therefore, he must be truthful. It should be said: He did not acquire it for fifty; rather, he acquired it together with the remainder for one hundred, although this portion is worth fifty. Thus, he is obliged to make this clear.

His statement, “Whatever is added to the price”: that is, during the period of option, must be disclosed.

An example is where he buys something for one hundred, and during the session the seller says: “I have been underpaid. I will not sell it except for one hundred and twenty; otherwise, I retain the option.” Thus, we are now