the slave. If he was not known to be a runaway before the sale, then he has become defective while in the possession of the buyer. Does he then have the right to return him and receive back the compensation for the defect that occurred while in his possession, as well as the compensation he had already taken? There are two narrations regarding this. If he was a runaway, he has the right to return him, return what he took as compensation, and take back his price. Al-Thawri and al-Shafi'i said: The buyer is not entitled to take his compensation, whether he is able to return him or is unable to do so, unless he perishes; because he has not despaired of returning him, so it is as if he sold him. Our view is that he is a defective item with which he is not satisfied, and he has not yet rectified the wrong done to him regarding it, so he is entitled to his compensation, just as if he had manumitted him. In the case of a sale, he has already rectified the wrong done to him, which is different from our current issue.

Section: If one buys a slave and manumits him, then learns of a defect in him and takes his compensation, it belongs to him. There is another narration from Ahmad that he should place it in the (expiation of) necks (i.e., charity for freeing slaves). This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because it is part of the neck (person) which God has designated, so nothing of its substitute should return to him. Our view is that the manumission only applied to the defective neck, and the portion for which he took a substitute was not encompassed by the manumission, nor was it present. Furthermore, the compensation is not a substitute for the slave; rather, it is a part of the price made as an equivalent for the lost part. Since he did not obtain that part from the sold item, he recovers the equivalent of it from the price. It is as if the contract was not valid regarding it, and this is why he recovered the equivalent from the price, not from the value of the slave. Ahmad’s statement in the other narration is interpreted as recommending that, not as making it obligatory. The Qadi said: The two narrations only concern the case where he manumits him for his kaffarah (expiation); because if he manumits him for his kaffarah, it is not permissible for him to receive back any of its substitute, like the mukatab (contractual slave) when he pays something from his contract of emancipation. Our view is that it is the compensation for a slave he manumitted, so it belongs to him, just as if he had manumitted him voluntarily.

746 - Issue: He said: (If he discovers a defect that could have occurred before the purchase or after it, the buyer shall swear an oath, and he shall have the option of returning it or taking the compensation).

The entirety of this is that when the two transacting parties disagree regarding the defect—whether it was in the sold item before the contract or occurred while in the buyer's possession—it cannot avoid being one of two scenarios.