the day he took them? Then he shall give it to him, regardless of whether their value decreased a little or a lot. The Qadi said: This is if people agree to abandon them; but if they continue to deal with them despite the ruler's prohibition of them, it is obligatory to accept them. Malik, Al-Layth ibn Sa'd, and Al-Shafi'i said: He has no right to anything but the equivalent of what he lent him, because that is not a defect that occurred to them, so it follows the same rule as a decrease in their price. Our argument is that the ruler's prohibition of them prevented their expenditure and invalidated their status as money, so it resembles their breaking or the loss of their parts. As for a decrease in price, it does not prevent their return, whether it is significant—such as if they were ten for a daniq and became twenty for a daniq (21)—or slight; because nothing occurred to them, rather the price changed, so it resembles wheat when it decreases or increases in price.

Section: If he lends him something that incurs costs to transport, and he then demands the equivalent in another city, he is not obligated to do so; because he is not obligated to transport it to that city for him. If he demands the value, he is obligated to provide it; because there is no cost for its transport. If the borrower volunteers to hand over the equivalent and the lender refuses to accept it, he has the right to do so, because he incurs harm in accepting it, as he might need to transport it to the place where he lent it to him. He has the right to demand the value of that in the city where he lent it to him; because that is the place where delivery is mandatory. If the loan is in currency or wealth that has no transport costs, and he demands it while they are in another city, he is obligated to hand it over to him; because delivery to him in this city or another is the same.

Section: If a Dhimmi (a free non-Muslim subject) lends another Dhimmi wine, and then they or one of them accepts Islam, the loan becomes void. Nothing becomes obligatory upon the borrower, regardless of whether it is he who is the Muslim or the other; because if he accepts Islam, it is not permissible for wine to become a liability upon him, due to its lack of value (as property). Its replacement is also not obligatory, because it has no value, and for that reason, he does not guarantee it if he destroys it. If the Muslim is the other party, nothing is obligatory for him, for the same reason.