al-Mudawwana a lengthy discussion of this case, with differences between the transmitted versions. One version, taken at face value, amounts to saying that the buyer recovers from the seller the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit, applying the rules governing concealment of a defect alone. Ibn Abī Zamanīn followed this version in his summary of the question, and it is the reading found in most versions. The second version applies only the rules governing a false statement of the price. This appears more clearly to reflect Ibn al-Qāsim’s meaning and intention in the book. Had he intended to apply only the rules governing a defect, he would have said: “He recovers the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit.” This would have dispensed with the lengthy discussion of the assessed value and its comparison with amounts which, upon examination, yield no useful result. All of this, however, is open to question. The correct interpretation is the one we shall set out below and adopt, Allah Most High willing. Recovering the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit is more advantageous to the buyer in this case. Since it is more advantageous to him, he is entitled to demand it according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, for manumission, manumission effective upon the owner’s death, and charitable donation are, in his view, dispositions that preclude return and entitle the buyer to recover compensation for the defect.

Under this interpretation, this version resembles Ziyād’s report from Mālik: if someone buys a slave and then gives him away as a gift or in charity, this precludes return, and he has no right to recover the loss in value caused by the defect—unless the version is understood to mean that he accepted the defect and sought the remedy for a false statement of the price. As for the first version, it may be understood as Ibn Abī Zamanīn interpreted it: the buyer was awarded only the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit, under the rules governing concealment of a defect, because that was more advantageous to him. On the face of the text, however, this is a strained interpretation.

Section

If someone bought defective goods knowing of their defect, then sold them in a cost-plus sale for more than he had paid while concealing the defect, the combination of a false statement of the price and concealment of a defect would be clearer still. If the goods then became non-returnable through their physical loss or something equivalent to physical loss, the buyer would necessarily be entitled to seek both remedies together. He would recover from the seller the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit. The seller would then be told: “Deduct from what he owes you the falsely stated amount as well, together with its corresponding share of the profit.” If he refused, the buyer would owe the assessed value, unless it exceeded the price at which the seller sold the goods after deducting the loss in value caused by the defects together with its corresponding share of the profit; the seller would receive no more than that amount. Or, if the assessed value were less than the correct price after deducting the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit, the buyer’s liability would not be reduced below that amount. On this