In this regard, there are two views: one is that he is not required to accept it. This is the opinion of Malik, based on the report and because it has diminished in quality due to acidity, making it similar to a case where one has destroyed it. The second is that he is required to accept it, because the decrease occurred through the act of handing over the sold item, the seller’s deception, and his authorization to milk it; therefore, it does not prevent the return, similar to the milk of a non-musarrah animal.

Section: If one is satisfied with the tasriya and keeps the animal, then finds another defect in it, he may return it for that [second] defect, because his satisfaction with one defect does not prevent the return for another, just as if he had purchased a lame animal and was satisfied with its defect, then it contracted vitiligo. If he returns it, he is obligated to provide a sa' of dates as a substitute for the milk, because it was established as a substitute for it in the case where he returns it due to the tasriya; thus, it is a substitute for it in all cases.

Section: If one buys a non-musarrah sheep, milks it, and then discovers a defect in it, he has the right to return it. If there was no milk in its udder at the time of the contract, he is not liable for anything, because whatever milk occurred after the contract happens while the animal is in the purchaser's ownership. If there was milk in it at the time of the contract, but it is an amount that the udder is typically not empty of in common practice, then there is nothing due for it, because such an amount is of no consequence and has no customary value; therefore, it follows what was newly produced. If it was a large amount and remained in its original state, does he have the right to return it? This is built upon the issue of returning the milk of tasriya, which has already been discussed. If we say he may not return it, its remaining is equivalent to its destruction. Does he have the right to return the sold item? This is derived from the two narrations [in our school] regarding a case where one buys something and a part of it is destroyed or becomes defective. The most well-known position in the Madhhab is that he may return it; based on this, he is obligated to return the equivalent of the milk, because it is a fungible item (dhu al-amthal). The principle is that the obligation for fungible items is to provide their equivalent, except that it was contradicted in the case of the milk of tasriya by the text (nass); therefore, in all other cases, it remains based on the principle. The companions of Al-Shafi'i have [arguments] in this section similar to what we have mentioned.

Third Section on Khiyar (Option): Our companions differed regarding its duration. The Qadi said: It is fixed at three days; he does not have the right to return it before they pass, nor to keep it after them. If he keeps it after that,