Each of these categories has its own ruling.

The first category: if the seller destroys it, the sale is rescinded. It is also said that if the seller destroys it, he must compensate for it, and this is the stronger view.

The difference between the two views is that, if we say that the sale is rescinded, the buyer has no claim against him beyond this: if the buyer has already paid the price, he takes it back; and if he has not paid it, it remains with him. But if we say that the seller must compensate for it, its value may have increased between the time of purchase and its destruction. Thus, if its value has increased, the buyer may claim from the seller the amount exceeding the price. This is the stronger view, because the seller has now become a wrongful usurper.

The second category is where it is destroyed by a heavenly calamity. In that case, the sale is rescinded, and the buyer recovers the price if he has paid it; if he has not paid it, the price remains with him. Evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet: “If you sell fruit to your brother and it is struck by a calamity, it is not lawful for you to take anything from him. On what basis do you take your brother’s wealth without right?” (1) Thus, he placed its liability upon the seller, who is not entitled to recover anything.

The third category is where it is destroyed by a person or something else from which compensation cannot be recovered. Its ruling is the same as that of what is destroyed by a heavenly calamity; that is, the sale is rescinded.

The fourth category is where it is destroyed by a person from whom compensation can be recovered. Here, the buyer is given a choice between two matters: either he rescinds the sale and recovers the price from the seller, or he confirms the sale and claims replacement from the one who destroyed it. The difference between