it may be, and the buyer agrees, saying, “Let us conclude the contract on the basis of the very worst quality available,” then it is valid. This is the correct view. For if he says, “the very worst,” and says, “This is the very worst quality available,” and the buyer accepts, then the right belongs to him. The buyer cannot say to the seller, “Go and look for something worse than this, otherwise I will not accept it.” Even if he could say this, the jurists have stated that if the seller brings him something better than what he is entitled to, he must accept it. If that is so, what prevents this condition from being valid? Moreover, in my view, according to what actually occurs, this condition is not encountered, because the seller does not say, “the very worst quality available.” Rather, he will say, “I will sell you food that is not of the best quality.”

The third view is that it is valid to stipulate either the very worst or the very best, and this is understood to mean what is available in the town market—that is, the best quality available in the market or the worst quality available in the market. This is understood by people according to customary usage, and any disagreement that may arise over it is inconsequential, because there is no salam contract without some disagreement, as Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said.

Thus, there are three views on this issue. The one that most decisively ends the dispute and is closest to what is correct is the second view: stipulating the very worst, but not stipulating the very best. For if the buyer wished to compel the seller to seek out something worse, the seller would not be obliged to do so, even according to the established school. If he is not obliged to do so, then what prevents it?!

His statement, “rather, good or inferior,” means that it is valid for him to say “good,” or to say “inferior.”

If someone were to say: The words “good” and “inferior” may involve even greater uncertainty