and the price of the sold item. If the asset is destroyed due to his negligence, it is like its destruction by his own action. Ahmad explicitly stated this and said: The seller reverts to the buyer for the fair rental value (ujrat al-mithl). The Qadi (judge) said: Its meaning, in my view, is the amount that the seller reduced [from the price] because of the condition. The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is contrary to this, for he guarantees what was lost due to his negligence, so he guarantees it with its equivalent, which is the fair rental value. However, if it was destroyed without his action and without his negligence, he does not guarantee it. Al-Athram said: I said to Abu 'Abd Allah: Is the purchaser required to carry it on another [animal] because he had two loads? He said: No. He only stipulated this specifically upon him. This is also because the seller did not own it from his [the buyer's] side, so he is not obliged to pay its equivalent, just as if an artificially pollinated palm tree were destroyed along with its fruit, or an unpollinated one when the seller stipulated its fruit, and just as if he sold a garden and excepted from it a specific tree, and it was destroyed. The Qadi said: He is liable for its guarantee, deriving this from the general statements of Ahmad. When the asset is destroyed, the seller reverts to the buyer for the fair rental value, and this is interpreted as being in a state of negligence according to what we have mentioned.

Section: If the seller stipulates the benefit of the sold item, and the purchaser wishes to give him what serves as a substitute for the sold item in terms of benefit, or to compensate him for it, he is not obligated to accept it, and he has the right to exact the benefit from the sold item itself. Ahmad explicitly stated this because his right is attached to it, so it is similar to if one rented an asset and the other offered him its equivalent; and because the seller may have a specific purpose in exacting the benefits of that particular asset, so he is not compelled to accept its substitute. If they both consent to that, it is permissible because the right belongs to them and does not go beyond them. If the seller wishes to lend the asset or rent it to someone who acts in his stead, he may do so according to the analogy of the school, because these are benefits owed to him, so he possesses the right to that regarding it, like the benefits of a rented house or one whose benefits have been bequeathed. It is not permissible to rent it except to someone similar to him in usage; if he wishes to rent or lend it to someone whose usage would harm the asset, that is not permitted, just as it is not permissible for him to rent