it as defective. If he does so after learning of its defect, his option is void according to the general consensus of the people of knowledge. Ibn al-Mundhir said: al-Hasan, Shurayh, Abdullah ibn al-Hasan, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion used to say: If one buys a commodity and offers it for sale, it becomes binding upon him. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, and I know of no dissenter regarding this. As for the compensation (arsh), Ibn Abi Musa said: He is also not entitled to it. We have already mentioned that the analogy of the school (madhhab) is entitlement to the compensation. Ahmad said: I say: If he uses the slave and seeks the diminution caused by the defect, he is entitled to that. As for milking milk that occurred after the contract, his right of return does not lapse, because the milk belongs to him, so he possesses the right to satisfy it from the sold item which he intends to return. The same applies if he rides the animal to inspect its gait, to water it, or to return it to its seller. If he uses the slave girl to test her, or wears the shirt to know its size, his option does not lapse, because that does not constitute satisfaction with the sold item; for this reason, the option of stipulation (khiyar al-shart) does not lapse by this. If he uses her for other than that with extensive use, his right of return is void. If it is slight and does not pertain to ownership, the option does not lapse. It was said to Ahmad: These people say: If he buys a slave and finds him defective, and then uses him by saying, 'Hand me this garment,' he means his option is void. He rejected this and said: Who said this? Or from where did they derive this? This is not satisfaction, until it is something that is clear. It has been reported from him regarding the voiding of the option of stipulation through use, two narrations. Likewise, it is inferred here.

Section: If the slave runs away, and then he learns of his defect, he is entitled to take his compensation. If he takes it and then obtains