the price. On this calculation, he received four-fifths of the purchased item, while one-fifth remained with the seller. A quarter of what he received was then lost while in his possession, amounting to one-fifth of the whole. He therefore owes the price corresponding to that portion, while the remainder of the price is waived if he has not yet paid it. If he has paid, he recovers four-fifths, and the seller retains one-fifth. This is because the buyer bears the loss of the fifth that perished in his possession, and the sale remains binding for that portion at its corresponding price. Likewise, if someone buys an item, consumes one-fifth of it through use—whether by eating it or damaging it—and then discovers a defect in the remainder, he returns the remainder but remains liable for one-fifth of the price for what he consumed. All this is clear, with no obscurity or doubt as to its correctness. Accordingly, returning the item requires three valuations, whereas retaining it requires two.

Ahmad ibn al-Muʿaddal said: “If he wishes to retain the slave and recover the slave’s value, he should recover that value from the price for which he purchased him, exactly as Ibn al-Qāsim holds. If he wishes to return him, however, he should return him together with compensation for the defect assessed on the day of return. His value on that day with the original defect is assessed, then his value with the second defect, and he returns him together with compensation for the second defect: the difference between the two valuations, without reference to the original price. This is because the sale is being rescinded. Do you not see that, if the slave had increased or diminished, he would be returned with that increase or diminution, without any further liability upon the buyer? Likewise, compensation for the defect is assessed on the day of return. The original defect is different, because the seller imposed it upon the buyer on the day of purchase. His value is therefore assessed as of that day, and the buyer recovers compensation from the price the seller received, without the sale between them being rescinded.”

Ahmad said: “I know of none of our fellow jurists who has discussed this question.”

I say: Ahmad ibn al-Muʿaddal discussed it alone—and any racer can make headway on an empty course. Had he examined Ibn al-Qāsim’s words and reflected upon them, their correctness would have become clear to him, and he could not reasonably have disagreed. The portion lost through the new defect was lost while in the buyer’s possession, so the sale became binding with respect to that portion, and he was obliged to pay its corresponding share of the price. This is clear.

Section

If, however, the diminution affects the greater part of the purchased item and destroys most of its usefulness—for example, if the buyer puts out both of a slave’s eyes, rendering him useless, or cuts off both his hands or both his feet; or buys a young slave who then becomes decrepit; or buys cloth and cuts it into short trousers, when cloth of that kind is not suited to being made into short trousers, thereby ruining it; or anything similar—then all of this is equivalent to the loss of the item itself. The buyer is therefore entitled only to recover compensation for the defect.