the milk of a human woman is desired for nursing, as one seeks a wet nurse for her and it enhances her body. For this reason, if one were to stipulate the abundance of her milk and it turns out to be otherwise, one possesses the right of rescission (faskh). If it were not an intended quality, it would not be established by stipulation, nor would one possess the right of rescission due to its absence. Furthermore, the female donkey and the mare are desired for their offspring. The second view is that no option is established by it, because her milk is not customarily exchanged for other goods, nor is it intended in the same manner as the milk of cattle. The report was delivered regarding cattle, and analogy to it is not valid because the intent behind the milk of cattle is greater, and the general wording was intended to refer to the specific, as evidenced by the fact that he ordered a sa' of dates for its return, which is not obligatory for the milk of others. Furthermore, since it was mentioned in both general and specific terms regarding a single case, the general is interpreted in light of the specific, and the meaning of the general in one of the two Hadiths is the specific in the other Hadith. According to the first view, if he returns her, he is not liable for the substitute of her milk, nor does he return anything with her, because this milk is not customarily sold, nor is there compensation for it.

Section: Every form of deception (tadlis) due to which the price varies—such as blackening the hair of a slave woman, curling it, reddening her face, or concealing water on a millstone and releasing it when presenting it to the buyer—establishes an option. This is because it is a deception regarding something that causes the price to vary, thus it establishes an option, like tasriya. Al-Shafi'i held this opinion. Abu Hanifa agreed regarding the blackening of hair, but regarding curling it, he said: No option is established by it, because it is a deception regarding something that is not a defect, resembling the case if one were to blacken the fingertips of a slave to make him appear to be a scribe or a blacksmith. Our argument is that it is a deception regarding something that causes the price to vary, resembling the blackening of hair. As for blackening the fingertips, it is not specific to being a scribe, because it is possible that he had dipped his fingers into the inkwell, or was a young boy of a scribe who fixes the inkwell for him, so thinking he is a scribe is a mere greed for which he does not deserve rescission. If this occurs without deception, such as milk accumulating in the udder without intent, or the slave woman’s face reddening due to shyness or exhaustion, or her hair becoming black due to something that fell