destroyed it. The amount of the compensation for the defect is the proportional difference between the sound and defective state of the price. Thus, the sold item is valued as sound, then it is valued as defective without being broken, and the buyer is entitled to the difference between them from the price, according to what has already been explained.

Section: If one buys a garment and unfolds it, then finds it defective, if it is of a type that unfolding does not diminish, he returns it. If it is of a type that unfolding diminishes, such as the Hisanjani (3), which is folded in two attached layers, then this follows the same rule as the coconut, according to the aforementioned detail, regarding whether the unfolding did not exceed what is necessary to investigate the sold item, or whether it exceeded it, like someone who does not know how to unfold it. If he prefers to take its compensation, he may do so in all cases.

Section: If one buys a garment and dyes it, then discovers a defect, he has the right to its compensation and nothing else. This is the view of Abu Hanifa. A report from Ahmad states that he may return it and take back his increase from the dyeing, because it is an increase and therefore does not prevent the return, like fattening or earnings. The first view is more appropriate, because this is a commutative contract, so the seller cannot be compelled to accept it, like other commutative contracts. It differs from fattening and earnings, for he does not take compensation for the fattening, and the earnings belong to the buyer, which he does not return, nor is he compensated for them. If the seller says: "I will take it and give the value of the dye," the buyer is not obligated to accept that. Al-Shafi'i said: The buyer has no right other than to return it, because he was able to return it, so he does not have the right to take compensation, just as if his slave had grown fat or earned money. Our response is: He cannot return it except by returning something of his own wealth with it, so his right to compensation is not dropped by his refusal to return it, just as if it had become defective while in his possession and the seller asked to take it back along with the compensation for the newly occurred defect. The principle we do not concede; for he is entitled to take the compensation if he so desires in all cases.

Section: The sale of an offending slave is valid, whether the offense was intentional or by mistake, against life or less than that, whether it warrants retaliation (qisas) or does not. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i in one of his two opinions. He said in the other: Its sale is not valid, because a right of a human being is attached to his person, so it prevents