Another is that property for which compensation is owed must be compensated according to its actual amount, not by a replacement amount fixed by revealed law; yet here the amount is fixed by revealed law.

Those who follow the hadith replied:

Rather, what you have said is mistaken. The hadith accords with established principles. Even if it differed from them, it would itself constitute a foundational principle, just as the others do. Foundational principles must not be set against one another; rather, they must all be followed, for they all come from Allah.

As for their claim that this permits a return despite there being neither a defect nor a failure to match the description, nothing in the established principles requires that the right of return be confined to these two grounds. Rather, deceptive presentation is another established ground for return, and it falls within the category of failing to match the description. The characteristics of an item for sale may be represented either by words or by actions. If it is made to appear to have a certain characteristic when it is actually otherwise, that is deceptive presentation. Indeed:

“The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, granted traders arriving with their goods the option to cancel the sale if they were intercepted and their goods purchased before they reached the market and learned the prevailing price.”

Neither of the two grounds applies here, but a form of deception is involved.

As for his statement:

“Entitlement to the yield follows liability for loss.”

First, the hadith concerning an animal whose milk has been allowed to accumulate in its udder is more authentic than this hadith, by the agreement of the scholars. Moreover, there is no contradiction between them. The yield is what accrues while the item is in the purchaser’s ownership. The term “yield” denotes income, such as a slave’s earnings; milk and similar produce are treated in the same way. Here, however, the milk was already present in the udder and thus formed part of the item sold. The sā‘ measure was not prescribed as compensation for what was produced after the contract, but as compensation for