Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i, except that Abu Hanifa said specifically regarding the one killed: He has no right to compensation, because his ownership ceased due to a guaranteed action, resembling a sale. Our position is that it is a defect with which he was not content, and he did not rectify the grievance regarding it, so he is entitled to compensation just as if he had emancipated it. As for the sale, we hold an opposing view, and even with its admission, he has rectified his grievance regarding it. Regarding a gift, there are two narrations from Ahmad: one is that it is like a sale because he has not despaired of the possibility of return due to the possibility that the gifted item might be returned to him. The second is that he has the right to compensation, and this is more appropriate. The Qadi did not mention anything else, because he did not rectify his grievance, so it resembles the case where he creates an endowment (waqf). The possibility of return is not a barrier to taking compensation in our view, by evidence of that which is before the gift. If he consumed the food or wore the garment, thereby destroying it, he recovers its compensation. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said this as well. Abu Hanifa said: He does not recover anything, because he destroyed the substance, so it resembles the case where he killed the slave. Our position is that he did not rectify his grievance, nor was he content with the defect, so his right to compensation does not lapse, just as if it were destroyed by the act of Allah the Almighty.

Section: If he did any of what we have mentioned after learning of the defect, the implication of al-Khiraqi's words is that he has no right to compensation. This is the school of thought of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, and it is the analogy of the Qadi's view, based on his statement regarding one who sells a defective item while knowing of its defect: He has no compensation, because he became content with it as defective by his disposal of it while knowing of its defect. The analogy of the school (al-madhhab) is that he has the right to compensation, because he has the right to retain the sold item and demand its compensation, and this is placed on the same level as retaining it while knowing of its defect. Furthermore, the seller did not fulfill to him what the contract necessitated, so he is entitled to recover its compensation, just as if he had emancipated it before learning of its defect. Also, the compensation is a substitute for the portion lost due to the defect, so it does not lapse by his disposal of what is other than it, just as if he sold him ten qafiz, handed over nine, and then disposed of them.

Section: If he derived profit (istaghalla) from the sold item, offered it for sale, or disposed of it in a manner indicating satisfaction with it before learning of the defect, his option (khiyar) does not lapse, because that does not indicate satisfaction with it as being defective.