the borrower to return a camel similar to it in age, colour, condition, and size, that would be closer to equivalence than its value. For value differs from it in kind, while only approximating it in appraisal; whereas a comparable animal is undoubtedly closer. Hence, the correct view is that a fungible good is that which has an identical or approximately equivalent counterpart. On this basis, animals are fungible goods.

For this reason, the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, borrowed a young camel and repaid it with a prime, mature camel (1), thereby treating it as a fungible good. Likewise, when a servant came to the Prophet, while he was with one of his wives, carrying food, the wife in whose house the Prophet was struck the servant’s hand, causing the food to fall and the dish to break. The Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, said: “A dish for a dish, and food for food” (2). He took the food and dish of the wife at whose house he was and sent them back with the servant. Thus, he held the person liable for the dish by replacing it with an equivalent, despite its workmanship; hence, the Prophet treated it as a fungible good.

There is no doubt that this view is the closer one. Accordingly, if someone borrows a camel, a comparable camel becomes established as a liability upon him; and if he borrows a dish, a comparable dish becomes established as a liability upon him. This is closer than requiring its value.

Thus, we differ with the author in this issue concerning the meaning of an equivalent, but we agree with him that an equivalent is returned in the case of fungible goods, and the value in the case of other goods.

If the equivalent is unavailable, then its value is due.

His statement, “If the equivalent is unavailable, then its value is due,” may also be read with “value” in the accusative case, the implied meaning being: then he must return its value. Thus, his statement, “If the equivalent is unavailable,” means: