Likewise, when Ibn Masʿūd ruled that “a widow whose dower had not been specified” was entitled to the dower customary for women of her standing, men from Ashjaʿ stood up and testified: “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the same ruling concerning Birwaʿ bint Wāshiq as you have given.” ʿAbd Allāh was overjoyed at this. Abū Bakr al-Siddīq also granted a grandmother a share of inheritance on the basis of the hadith reported by al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah and Muhammad ibn Salamah. There are many similar examples.

(Seventh:
It may be said that someone who rejects Abū Hurayrah’s hadith concerning “an animal whose milk has been allowed to accumulate in its udder” argues that it contradicts established legal principles or analogy based on those principles.

The answer is: Rather, this case should be treated like comparable cases in which the scriptural texts were followed. This hadith concerns a case that differs from others, not one that resembles them. Analogy means treating like cases alike and distinguishing between unlike cases.

The objection raised by someone who rejects it is this: It establishes the right to return defective goods and fixes the compensation for what has been consumed. Yet, if the item is replaceable in kind, compensation should be made with its equivalent; otherwise, its value should be paid. Here, however, compensation is neither an equivalent nor its value. Moreover, liability is imposed on the buyer, whereas the yield belongs to the one who bears liability.

The answer is: By agreement of the leading scholars, the right to return an item arises both from deceptive misrepresentation and from its failure to possess the stated characteristics. “The person who misrepresents the goods,” making them appear to possess a characteristic they do not possess, is like someone who describes them as possessing it in words. This kind of option to rescind is distinct from the option to return goods because of a defect.