with this condition. Rather, the apparent [meaning] is that the family of Barirah, when they reached the point of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) disapproval of this condition, they abandoned it. It is also possible that the condition preceded the contract, and thus had no effect upon it.

Section: He is obligated to return the sold item, along with its connected and detached growth, and the rental value (ujrat al-mithl) for the duration it remained in his possession. If it has diminished, he is liable for its diminution, because it is a liability-backed asset (jumlah madmunah), so its components are also guaranteed. If the sold item perishes in the buyer's hand, he is liable for its value on the day it perished. This was stated by the al-Qadi. This is because Ahmad explicitly stated this regarding usurpation (ghasb), and because he possessed it with the permission of its owner, thus it resembles a loan (ariyah). Al-Khiraqi mentioned in the context of usurpation that he is liable for its highest valuation that it reached, and it could be extrapolated here likewise, which is more appropriate; because the substance (ayn) was the property of its owner during the time of its increase, and he is liable for its diminution along with its increase, so it is the same during the time of its perishing, just as if he had destroyed it through an offense. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two opinions similar to these two.

Section: If the sold item is a slave girl and the buyer has intercourse with her, there is no hadd (prescribed punishment) upon him, due to his belief that she is his property, and because there is a disagreement regarding ownership. He owes the mahr al-mithl (dower of a similar woman); because when the hadd is dropped due to ambiguity (shubhah), the dower becomes mandatory. Also, because intercourse with the property of another necessitates a dower. He is also liable for the indemnity (arsh) of virginity if she was a virgin. If it is said: "Does he not, when he marries a woman in a void marriage and has intercourse with her, removing her virginity, not become liable for the virginity?" We say: This is because the marriage contract implies permission for the intercourse that removes virginity, as it is a contract concluded for intercourse. The sale is not like this, for it is not a contract concluded for intercourse, evidenced by the fact that it is permissible to purchase someone with whom intercourse is not lawful, nor is marriage to her lawful. If it is said: "When you mandate a virgin's dower, how do you mandate liability for the virginity, when its indemnity has already been included in the dower? And when you mandate liability for the virginity, how do you mandate a virgin's dower, when he has already fulfilled the compensation for the virginity through his liability for it, such that he is like one who removes her virginity with his finger and then has intercourse with her?" We say: Because the virgin's dower is a compensation for the benefit (manfa'ah), and the indemnity of virginity is a compensation for a part (juz'), thus they are combined. As for the second point, when he has intercourse with her as a virgin, he has already consumed the benefit of this part, so its value becomes mandatory due to what he has consumed of its benefit. When he destroys it, its substance becomes a liability. It is not permissible for the substance to be guaranteed while the liability for the benefit is dropped, just as if he usurped an object that has a benefit, consumed its benefit, then destroyed it, or usurped