for if they brought their dispute before a judge, he would rule that the commodity be returned to the seller and the price be returned to the buyer.

As for inwardly, suppose that the seller is lying and that the sale was for eighty, but the commodity has been returned to him. We would then say to him: “Dispose of it as owners dispose of their property.” Thus, if you sell it, lease it, or gift it, all contracts concluded after the rescission of the first contract are valid and effective, even if you are lying. This is the position adopted by the author, may Allah have mercy on him, but it is a very weak view.

The correct view is that, with respect to whichever of the two is lying, the contract is not rescinded inwardly, and it is not lawful for him to dispose of what has returned to him—whether it is the price, if he is the buyer, or the commodity, if he is the seller. This is analogous to what they state concerning a settlement: where someone is claimed to owe a debt, denies it while lying, and then reaches a settlement with the claimant, they say that the settlement is not valid inwardly for the one who lied. Thus it may be said: what difference is there between this case and that one? The correct view, then, is that the contract is rescinded for the liar only outwardly, not inwardly.

For example, he swears that he did not sell it for the amount stated by the buyer, but rather sold it for the amount he himself claimed. The contract is then rescinded, and the commodity returns to the seller; he subsequently sells it to another person. This second sale is valid outwardly and inwardly. Even if they later bring their dispute before a judge—should a disagreement arise between the second buyer and the seller—the judge will rule that it belongs to the second buyer. However, if the seller was lying, this is the point at issue. The established school holds that the second sale is valid even before the judge.