in both, and if it is not established by that, such as his own property and the property of another, it is valid regarding what he owns; because what is differed upon can be subject to the ruling of permission, by the ruling of a judge, through the validity of its sale. Abu Thawr said: Its sale is not valid, due to what preceded in the second category, and because the price is unknown, as it is only clarified by dividing the price according to the value, and that is unknown at the moment, so the sale is not valid with it, just as if he said: "I sold you this commodity for its label price, or for its share of the capital." Also, because if he had explicitly stated it, saying: "I sold you this for its share of the price," it would not be valid; therefore, it is the same when he does not explicitly state it. Those who supported the first narration said: Whenever he names a price for a sold item of which part might fall off, it does not necessitate an ignorance that prevents validity, just as if he found part of the sold item to be defective and took its compensation (arsh). The position of invalidity in this category is more apparent, God willing. The ruling regarding the pledge, the gift, and the rest of the contracts, if they combine what is permissible and what is not permissible, is the same as the ruling in the sale, except that the apparent [view] in them is validity because they are not contracts of exchange, so there is no ignorance of compensation in them.

Section: If the contract occurs upon something measurable or weighable, and a portion of it is destroyed before he takes possession of it, the contract is not rescinded regarding the remainder, according to one narration. The purchaser takes the remainder for its share of the price; because the contract occurred validly, so the loss of part of it does not rescind it, just as after possession, and just as if he found one of the two sold items defective and returned it, or if one of the two parties to the contract agreed with the other to rescind the sale regarding part of the sold item.

Section: If two men have two slaves, each one having one slave, and they sell them in a single transaction for a single price, or one of them appoints the other as his agent and he sells them for a single price, there are two views regarding this. One is that it is valid in both, and the compensation is divided according to the value of both. This is