gold for gold in varying amounts. If one of them finds in what he received an excess over the dinar, you must look at the contract. If he said, "I sold you this dinar for this," then the contract is void because he sold gold for gold in varying amounts. If he said, "I sold you a dinar for a dinar," and then they took possession, the excess in the hands of the receiver is considered common property (musha') and is guaranteed by him for its owner, because he took possession of it under the impression that it was compensation, and the contract did not become corrupt because he only sold a dinar for its equivalent; the taking of possession only occurred for an amount exceeding what was contracted. If he wishes to return the substitute for the excess, it is permissible, whether it is of the same category or a different category, because this is an initiated exchange. If one of them wishes to annul the contract, he may do so, because the one who took the excess found the sold item mixed with something else, rendered defective by the defect of joint ownership (shirkah), and the one who gave it is not required to accept its substitute, unless they are still in the session, in which case he may return the excess and give its replacement. If a man owed another ten dinars and paid him ten by count, then he found them to be eleven, this additional dinar in the hands of the receiver is common property and is guaranteed by him for its owner, because he took possession of it under the impression that it was compensation for his property, so it was guaranteed by this act of taking possession, and its owner may dispose of it however he wishes.

Section: Dirhams and dinars are specified by designation in the contract, meaning that ownership is established by the contract in what they have designated, and it is specified as compensation within it, so it is not permissible to substitute it. If it turns out to be usurped, the contract is void. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i. From Ahmad, there is a view that they are not specified by the contract, so it is permissible to substitute them, and the contract is not rendered void by their turning out to be usurped. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, because it is permissible to leave them unspecified in the contract, so they are not specified by designation therein, just like a measure or a weight standard. Our evidence is that it is a compensation in a contract, so it is specified by designation like other compensations, and because it is one of the two compensations, it is specified like the other. It differs from what they mentioned, as that is not a compensation; rather, it is intended for the estimation of contracts and to define their quantity, and ownership is not established in it at all, unlike our issue.