its price? There are three opinions:
The first is that he has a preferential right to them. This is Sahnūn’s view.
The second is that he has no preferential right to them. This is Ibn al-Mawwāz’s view.
The third is that, if he purchased them for cash, he has a preferential right to them; but if he purchased them on credit, he has no preferential right and stands on an equal footing with the other creditors. This is Ibn al-Mājishūn’s view. They agree that, if he finds the very money he paid, he has a preferential right to it in cases of both death and insolvency.
Likewise, if someone exchanges goods for other goods, and those he receives are established to belong to a third party, he has a preferential right to the goods he gave, provided he finds those very goods, in cases of both death and insolvency. There is no disagreement on this point. Similarly, if someone marries a woman with specified goods as her dowry, delivers them to her, and she becomes insolvent, and he then divorces her before consummation or the marriage is found to have been annulled, he has a preferential right to all the goods if the marriage has been annulled, or to half of them if he divorced her, provided he finds those very goods still intact. This applies in cases of both death and insolvency, without disagreement.
Section
If he has delivered it to the buyer, who then becomes insolvent after it has ceased to be available for reclamation while in his possession, or if it cannot be individually identified, he stands on an equal footing with the other creditors. What does and does not render it unavailable for reclamation is discussed in the writings of the scholars, including Ibn Habīb and others. Its identity may be established in either of two ways: by evidence establishing it, or by the insolvent debtor’s acknowledgment before he is declared insolvent. If he acknowledges it only after being declared insolvent, there are three opinions:
The first is that his statement is accepted. Some say that the owner of the goods must also swear an oath; others say that no oath is required. Another view is that his statement is not accepted, and the creditors must swear that they do not know the goods to belong to the claimant. It has also been said that if there is