of silver as a qafiz of wheat. It is permissible, and the same ruling applies to all other items of riba-based wealth, whether sold for an item of the same category or a different category, among those for which possession is a condition. Thus, if the arsh is something for which possession is not a condition—such as one who sold a qafiz of wheat for two qafiz of barley, and then found one of them to be defective and took its arsh as a dirham—it is permissible, even if this is after the parties have separated; because separation did not occur before taking possession of that for which possession was stipulated.

Section: Al-Khiraqi’s statement: "If it is at the exchange rate of his day." He means that returning it is permissible as long as the value of the currency he took has not decreased from its value on the day they conducted the exchange. If its value has decreased, such as if he took ten for a dinar, and it became eleven for a dinar, then the apparent meaning of Ahmad and al-Khiraqi is that he does not possess the right to return it, because the sold item became defective in his hand due to the decrease in its value. If its value has increased, such as if it became nine for a dinar, it does not prevent the return, because it is an increase, not a defect. The correct view is that this does not prevent the return, because a change in price is not a defect; therefore, it is not guaranteed (damana) in cases of usurpation (ghasb), and it does not prevent return due to a defect in a loan (qard). Even if it were a defect, the apparent view of the school (madhhab) is that if the sold item becomes defective while in the buyer's possession and then a latent defect is discovered, he has the right to return it, return the arsh of the defect that occurred while in his possession, and take back the price.

Section: If the compensation in the sarf (exchange) is destroyed after possession, then he learns of its defect, he annuls the contract and returns what is existing, and the value of the defect remains as a liability on the one in whose possession it was destroyed. Thus, he returns its equivalent or its substitute if they agree upon that, regardless of whether the sarf was of the same category or a different category. Ibn Aqil mentioned this, and it is the view of al-Shafi'i. Ibn Aqil said: It has been narrated from Ahmad that taking the arsh is permissible, but the first view is more appropriate, unless they are still in the session and the two compensations are of two different categories.

Section: If the two parties to the exchange know the quantity of the two compensations, it is permissible for them to trade without weighing. Likewise, if one of them informs the other of the weight of what he has, and he believes him, then he sells a dinar for a dinar accordingly, and they separate, but then one of them finds what he took to be deficient, the sarf is void, because they traded