inwardly by his rescission, just like returning [the item] due to a defect. It seems stronger to me that if the truthful one among them rescinds it, it is rescinded outwardly and inwardly, for that reason. If the liar rescinds it while knowing of his lie, it is not rescinded in relation to him, because it is not lawful for him to rescind it; thus, its ruling is not established in relation to him, but it is established in relation to his counterpart, so it is permissible for him [the counterpart] to dispose of what returned to him because it returned to him by the ruling of the Law without any transgression on his part; he is therefore like one to whom the sold item is returned based on a claim of a defect, while there is no defect in it.

754 - Issue: He said: "If the commodity is destroyed, they shall mutually swear (tahalufa) and return to the value of its equal, unless the buyer wishes to give the price according to what the seller said. If they disagree on the quality, the statement is the statement of the buyer, along with his oath, regarding the quality."

Its totality is that if they disagree on the price of the commodity after its destruction, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding it. The first of them is that they mutually swear, just as if it were still existent. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, and one of the two narrations from Malik. The other is that the statement is the statement of the buyer along with his oath. Abu Bakr chose this view, and it is the view of al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and Abu Hanifah, due to his (peace be upon him) statement in the hadith: "...and the commodity is existent." Its implication is that mutual swearing is not prescribed when it is destroyed. Furthermore, they agreed on the transfer of the commodity to the buyer and the entitlement to ten in its price, but they disagreed on an additional ten; the seller claims it, the buyer denies it, and the statement is that of the denier. We left aside this analogy in the state of the commodity's existence due to the hadith narrated regarding it, so in what is besides that, it remains upon the analogy. The rationale for the first narration is the generality of his statement: "If the two parties to a sale disagree, the statement is the statement of the seller, and the buyer has the option." Ahmad said: "He did not say in it: 'and the sold item is existent'." Except for Yazid ibn Harun. Abu Abd Allah said: The narrators of the oath from al-Mas'udi have erred; they did not...