to the differential [in value] in cases where equality is stipulated. If they are of two different kinds, it is permissible. As for if they take possession and part ways, then he finds a defect that is of its own kind, he is entitled to replace it according to one of the two narrations. This was chosen by al-Khallal and al-Khiraqi. This is also narrated from al-Hasan and Qatadah. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and it is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, because what is permissible to replace before parting is permissible after it, like the Salam item. The second narration is that he does not have that right, which is the opinion of Abu Bakr, the school of Abu Hanifah, and the second opinion of al-Shafi'i, because he is taking possession after parting, and that is not permissible in Sarf. Those who follow the first narration say: Taking possession of the first [item] made the contract valid, and taking possession of the second serves as an indicator for the first. It is stipulated that he takes the replacement during the session of the return; if they part without taking possession, the contract is void. If he finds part of it to be poor quality and returns it, then according to the first narration, he is entitled to a replacement, and according to the second, it is void regarding the returned portion. As for whether it is valid regarding what he did not return, there are two views based on the splitting of the transaction (tafriq al-safqah), and there is no difference between whether the sold item is of one kind or two kinds. Malik said: If he finds a counterfeit dirham and is satisfied with it, it is permissible; but if he returns it, the Sarf is invalidated for one dinar. If he returns eleven dirhams, the Sarf is invalidated for two dinars, and every time he adds to one dinar, the Sarf is invalidated for another dinar. Our evidence is that what has no defect was not returned, so the Sarf is not invalidated regarding what corresponds to it, just like the rest of the compensation. If the one who found the defect chooses to annul [the contract], then according to our view that he has a right to a replacement, he cannot annul it if he is provided a replacement, because he is able to obtain his right without defects. According to the other narration, he may annul it or keep the whole, because he was unable to reach what he contracted for while maintaining the contract. If he chooses to take the arsh (compensation) for the defect after parting, he is not entitled to that, because it is compensation he receives after parting from the Sarf, except according to the other narration.

Section: It is a condition of Sarf in the dhimmah (liability) that both compensations be known, either by a description that distinguishes them, or that the town has a known or prevailing currency, so that the absolute reference points to it. If he says: "I sell you an Egyptian dinar for twenty dirhams of the currency of ten to a dinar," it is not valid.