property for which compensation is due because of usurpation or destruction, if it has no equivalent, is assessed by its value, not by contracts. Assessing the compensation according to that same contract is therefore more appropriate than assessing it according to liability arising under another contract. However, this question—“the question of immediate and deferred payment”—rests on another principle: that differences in prices affect equivalence. This is discussed in its proper place. And Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man concluded a contract with another man in the port of Alexandria for produce which the latter said was stored in a district of Beirut. The buyer paid him the price, and he sent his agent to deliver the produce to the buyer. The agent did not find the produce available; rather, he found it held under restraint. All this occurred after the buyer had formally acknowledged before witnesses that he had received the produce in question. May this seller delay returning the price he received? Does he have any plausible justification for doing so, and is the seller to be granted a delay in returning the price to the person who paid it, even after repayment has been demanded, or not?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds. If the buyer does not find the goods sold to him at a distant location, or finds them but cannot take possession of them, he may rescind the sale if the property has been usurped. If it has perished, the sale is dissolved, and the seller must return the price when the buyer requests it. The buyer’s witnessed acknowledgment of receipt does not benefit the seller if the buyer had made that acknowledgment