to say: "It was obtained by me for such-and-such amount." This is the opinion of al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Tawus, al-Nakha'i, al-Awza'i, and Abu Thawr. It is possible that it is permissible regarding that for which he hired someone, to add the wage to the price and say: "It was obtained by me for such-and-such amount," because he is being truthful. This is the opinion of al-Sha'bi, al-Hakam, and al-Shafi'i. Our argument is that this is a deception of the purchaser, for he might not desire the item if he knew that a portion of the price was due to the manufacturing, as he lacks interest in that. Thus, it is similar to what reduces the animal in terms of its provision and clothing, or what is incumbent upon the buyer in terms of its storage.

The second type is that the item changes by way of a decrease, such as it decreasing due to illness, injury to it, the spoilage of some of it, childbirth, a defect, or if the purchaser takes some of it, such as wool, existing milk, and the like. In this case, he must inform [the buyer] of the situation as it actually is; we know of no disagreement regarding this. If he receives indemnity (arsh) for a defect or injury, he must report that as it is. This was mentioned by al-Qadi. Abu al-Khattab said: He deducts the indemnity for the defect from the price and reports the remainder, because the indemnity for the defect is a substitute for what was lost, so the price of what remains is what is left. Regarding the indemnity for injury, there are two views: one, that he deducts it from the price like the indemnity for a defect; and two, that he does not deduct it, like the growth. Al-Shafi'i said: He deducts both of them from the price and says: "It was valued at such-and-such for me," because he is truthful in what he reported, so it is similar to if he had reported the situation as it is. Our argument is that reporting the situation as it actually is, is more indicative of truthfulness and closer to clarification and the negation of deception and fraud toward the purchaser; therefore, it is required of him, just as if he had purchased two items for one price and apportioned the price between them. Analogizing the indemnity for injury to growth and earnings is not correct, because the indemnity is a substitute for its decrease resulting from the injury, so it is in the position of the price of a part of it that he sold, and like the value of one of two garments if one of them is destroyed. Whereas growth and earnings are an increase through which the sold item did not decrease, nor are they a substitute for anything of it. As for if the sold item causes injury and the purchaser pays a ransom (fida) for it, he does not attach this to the price and does not report it in the murabaha, without any disagreement that we know of; because this indemnity did not increase the sold item in value or essence, rather it merely removes its decrease resulting from the injury and defect by attaching it to its person, so it is like medicine that removes its illness that occurred while with the purchaser. As for medications, provisions, clothing, and his own work on the merchandise, or the work of someone else for him without a wage, then he