and this is not permissible in Salam. The second view is that it does not become void, because the initial taking of possession was valid, as evidenced by the fact that if he had kept it and not returned it, this would indicate the item taken into possession. This is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and it is one of the two views of al-Shafi'i, and the choice of al-Muzani. However, one of its conditions is that he must take possession of the substitute in the session of the return; if they separate from the session of the return before taking possession of the substitute, it is not valid, based on a single view, due to the contract being void of the taking of possession of the price after their separation. If he finds some of the price to be of poor quality and returns it, the detail we have mentioned applies to the returned portion. And is it valid regarding that which is not of poor quality if we hold that it is corrupt regarding the poor quality? There are two views, based on the division of the transaction.

Section: If the dirhams turn out to be someone else’s property (mustahaqqa) and the price was specified, the contract is not valid. Ahmad said: If the dirhams turn out to be stolen, there is no sale between them; this is because if the price was specified, he bought with the substance of another’s wealth without his permission. If it was not specified, he has the right to demand its replacement in the session. If he takes possession of it and then they separate, the contract is void, because what was taken into possession does not qualify as consideration, so they have separated before taking the price, except according to the report which says that the action of the unauthorized agent (fuduli) is valid, [or that currency does not become specified by specification]. If he finds some of it to be someone else’s property, it is void regarding that portion, and there are two views regarding the remainder, based on the division of the transaction.

Section: If a man has a dinar as a debt against another, and he designates it as a Salam for food to be delivered at a specified time, it is not valid. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars of knowledge whom I have memorized have reached a consensus on this, including Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Thawri, Ahmad, Ishaq, the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and al-Shafi'i. From Ibn Umar it is reported that he said: This is not valid. This is because the item for which Salam is paid (al-muslam fihi) is a debt, so if he designates the price as a debt, it becomes a sale of a debt for a debt, and that is not valid by consensus. And if he were to say: 'I have paid you one hundred dirhams as a Salam for a kurr of food,' and they stipulated that he should hasten fifty for him [now] and [the other] fifty at a specified time,