That being so, it is clear that the wrongfully taken additional sum cannot be distinguished from the amount to which it was added. The two can only be apportioned by dividing either the property itself or its substitute. Since returning the property itself has become impossible, the value of its substitute must therefore be used. This shows that one may transact with the shopkeeper for the property in his possession, while he must give the wronged co-owners their dues.

Either the wronged parties’ claims are solely against him personally, or their claims attach to the specific assets, while transactions involving those assets remain permissible so that their dues may be paid. There is no way to discharge their claims fairly otherwise. On this basis, the purchasers have taken possession of what they bought through lawful, valid purchases. Other evidence also shows that these purchasers wrong no one by buying, that their purchases are permissible, and that preventing people from buying from such sellers compounds the injustice—something neither Allah nor His Messenger has commanded. Accordingly, when there is a need to buy from him, doing so is not even disliked, let alone forbidden.

If, however, what he sold is assumed to be the very property covered by the contract, then this depends on whether contracts may remain pending approval and whether property belonging to an unidentified owner may be dealt with without his permission for a beneficial purpose. Most scholars hold that such contracts may remain pending approval, particularly when there is a need. This is the position of Mālik and Abū Hanīfa, and also of Ahmad when there is a need—for example, when the owner’s permission cannot be sought because his identity is unknown. Where no such need exists, two positions are reported from Ahmad. Al-Khiraqī chose the view that such contracts remain pending approval, in agreement with the position of Mālik and Abū Hanīfa. This is also a position held by al-Shāfiʿī. It follows that