food differs from it in this regard. The reasoning for al-Khiraqi’s opinion is that food prohibited from being sold before possession is almost always measured, weighed, or counted; thus, the legal ruling is attached to these properties just as it is in the case of usury (riba al-fadl). It is also possible that he meant measured, weighed, and counted food (14) regarding which the text explicitly forbids its sale, and this is more evident as a proof and is better.

Once this is established, if the sold item from this category perishes before being taken into possession due to a divine disaster, the contract is void, and the buyer recoups the price. If it perishes due to the buyer's action, the price is binding upon him, and it is considered as having been taken into possession because he exercised control over it. If a third party destroys it, the contract is not void, based on the analogy of his (Ibn Qudama’s) opinion regarding the disaster (ja'ihah), and the buyer has the choice between annulling the contract and recouping the price—because the destruction occurred while in the possession of the seller, making it akin to a defect arising in his possession—or upholding the contract and demanding the equivalent (mithl) from the person who destroyed it, if it is an item having a fungible equivalent. Al-Shafi'i held this view, and I am not aware of any dissenter regarding it. If the seller destroys it, our companions said: The ruling is the same as if a third party had destroyed it, because it was destroyed by someone whose responsibility it is to guarantee it, so it resembles the case where a third party destroys it. Al-Shafi'i said: The contract is rescinded, and the buyer recovers the price and nothing else; because it is destruction for which the seller is liable, so the recovery of the price from him is like destruction by the act of Allah the Almighty. Our companions distinguished between the two by stating that if it perishes by the act of Allah, there is no cause for liability other than the ruling of the contract, unlike when he destroys it himself; for his destruction necessitates liability for the equivalent, while the ruling of the contract necessitates liability for the price, so the choice lies with the buyer to demand guarantee by whichever of the two he wishes.

Section: If it becomes defective in the seller's possession, or some of it perishes due to a divine act, the buyer is given the choice between accepting it in its deficient state with no further compensation, or annulling the contract and recovering the price. This is because if he accepts it with the defect, [it is as if he bought a defective item] (15) while knowing of its defect, and he is not entitled to anything on account of the defect. If he annuls the contract, he shall have no more than the price; because if the entire sold item had perished, he would have had no more than the price, so if it becomes defective or part of it perishes, it follows a fortiori. If it becomes defective due to the action of