in al-Mudawwanah. The alternative to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in the Book of Riding Mounts and Beasts also accords with this view: a seller is believed when he claims that the property whose use he reserved in the sale has perished. A different interpretation has also been offered: the seller’s claim of destruction is accepted according to the view that the reserved benefit does not remain in his ownership, but is treated as something purchased. It is thus as though the parties had concluded their transaction and the buyer had taken the property away, after which the seller hired it from him. He must therefore be believed when he claims that what he hired has perished. This interpretation, however, is incorrect. Had their dealings been separate, it would have been permissible to reserve its use for a month or more, whereas he permitted this only for a short period, such as a day or two.

Section

On this same reasoning, there is also disagreement over the date as of which the gift is to be valued if it becomes unavailable for return. One view takes the day the gift was made. This is Mālik’s position in the reports transmitted by Ibn al-Qāsim in the Book of Charitable Donations and Gifts, and Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in the reports transmitted by ʿĪsā and Asbagh in that same book. The same view appears in the reports in the Book of Endowments in al-Mudawwanah. Another view takes the day possession was taken. This is Mālik’s position in his Muwatta’, and the same view appears in the Book of Pre-emption in al-Mudawwanah. This disagreement follows their disagreement over liability for loss, which has already been discussed.

Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz preferred valuation as of the day possession was taken. His justification, however, is unsound according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position and his report from Mālik. He argued that the recipient may choose to return the gift before taking possession of it. Yet according to Ibn al-Qāsim, he may also choose to return it after taking possession, so long as it has not become unavailable for return. Ibn al-Mawwāz’s reasoning would therefore require the recipient to pay its value as of the day it becomes unavailable for return. But they have not held this view, nor is it reported from them. Were it advanced, however, it would have a basis: analogy with someone who purchases an item subject to an option to rescind. Ibn al-Mawwāz’s position is sound only by analogy with Ibn al-Mājishūn’s report from Mālik that the recipient becomes liable for the value upon taking possession of