and it was returned to him due to his refusal, does he have the right to return it to the principal? There are two views: The first is that he does not have the right to return it; because that proceeds in the same manner as his acknowledgement. The second is that he has the right to return it; because it returns to him without his choice, similar to a case where evidence is established against him.

Section: If one buys a slave girl on the condition that she is a virgin, then the buyer says: "She is a thayyib (non-virgin)." She shall be shown to trustworthy women, and the statement of a trustworthy woman is accepted. If the buyer has intercourse with her and says: "I did not find her to be a virgin," two views are derived therefrom, based on the two narrations regarding when they differ regarding a defect that occurred later.

Section: If the buyer returns the merchandise due to a defect in it, and the seller denies that it is his merchandise, the statement is that of the seller along with his oath. Abu Thawr and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y) said this. Al-Awza'i said something similar, for he said regarding one who exchanged dirhams for dinars, then returned with a dirham, and the money changer said: "This is not my dirham," the money changer swears: "By God, I paid this to you," and he is absolved; because the seller is denying that this is his merchandise and is denying the entitlement to rescission, and the statement is that of the denier. As for if he comes to return the merchandise due to an option, and the seller denies that it is his merchandise, Ibn al-Mundhir related from Ahmad that the statement is that of the buyer. This is the view of al-Thawri, Ishaq, and the scholars of opinion; because they both agreed upon the entitlement to rescind the contract, and the return due to a defect is the opposite of that.

747 - Issue: He said: (If he buys something whose edible part is inside it, and he breaks it and finds it spoiled, if the broken item has no value, such as chicken eggs, he recovers the price from the seller. If the broken item has value, such as a coconut, he has the option of returning it and taking back the price—and he is liable for the compensation for the breaking—or he takes the difference between its sound and defective state.)

The entirety of this is that if he buys what he cannot examine for defects except by breaking it, such as melons, pomegranates, walnuts, and eggs, and he breaks it and its defect is revealed, there are two narrations: The first is that he does not recover anything from the seller, and this is the school of Malik; because there is neither deception nor negligence from the seller, due to his lack of knowledge of its defect and the fact that it is impossible for him to ascertain it except by breaking it, so it is treated as