what is stated in the Book of Pre-emption in al-Mudawwana; (second) rescission does not take effect upon completion of their oaths. This is Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in the second book on advance-payment sales in al-Mudawwana. (Third) if the oaths are taken pursuant to a judicial order, rescission takes effect upon their completion; otherwise, rescission takes effect only if both parties agree to it after taking their oaths. (Fourth) if the oaths are taken pursuant to a judge’s order, rescission does not take effect until the judge rules accordingly between them; but if they take their oaths without a judicial order, rescission takes effect upon their completion—the reverse of the third opinion. The reasoning behind this opinion is that their agreement to swear oaths without a judicial order constitutes their consent to rescission. These last two opinions belong to later scholars of our school.
Section
If we hold that a sale or hire contract is not rescinded upon completion of the parties’ oaths, but only when the judge rescinds it, there is a further disagreement. Al-Mudawwana states that the buyer may take the item on the terms stated by the seller. Its apparent meaning is that the seller may not compel the buyer to take it on those terms. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam, however, said that the seller may compel the buyer to take it on the terms he stated. The apparent meaning of his statement, likewise, is that the buyer has no right to take it on the terms stated by the seller.
It has also been said that these are not conflicting opinions: al-Mudawwana discusses the buyer without addressing the seller, while Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam discusses the seller without addressing the buyer. The two statements may therefore be reconciled as follows: if the buyer wishes to take the item on the seller’s stated terms, the seller is bound to accept; and if the seller wishes to compel the buyer to take it on those terms, the buyer is bound to accept. This is the explanation we received from Shaykh Abū Ja‘far ibn Rizq, may Allah have mercy on him.
This reconciliation is valid only when their disagreement concerns the amount or the journey’s endpoint. If, however, their disagreement concerns the kinds of payment or the journey as a whole, the statements can only be understood as conflicting opinions, since they cannot be reconciled in such cases. Thus, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, the hirer is entitled to ride as far as the town specified by the owner if their disagreement concerns the journey as a whole, and to ride for the kind of payment specified by the owner if their disagreement concerns