reclamation that falls back to a substitute, so it is deferred, like the reclamation of a gift. The second opinion is that it is immediate, because it is an option established in a sale due to a deficiency in the substitute, so it is immediate, like the return due to a defect. Furthermore, allowing it to be delayed leads to harm to the other creditors, as it results in the delay of their rights, making it similar to the option of exercising the right of pre-emption (shuf'ah). Al-Qadi supported this view, and the followers of Al-Shafi'i hold two opinions similar to these.

Section: If the creditors offer the price to the owner of the goods so that he may leave them with the insolvent person, he is not obligated to accept it. Ahmad stated this explicitly, and Al-Shafi'i also held this view. Malik said: He does not have the right of reclamation; because reclamation is only permissible to prevent the loss he would suffer regarding the price, so if the full price is offered to him, he no longer has the right of reclamation, just as if the defect were removed from a defective item. Our argument is the report (khabar) that we have narrated, and because this is a voluntary act of paying a right by someone other than the one upon whom it is due, so the owner of the right is not forced to accept it, just as if a husband were insolvent regarding maintenance and someone else offered it, or if a Mukatab (slave under a contract of manumission) were unable to pay and someone else offered what he owed to his master. By this, the argument they mentioned is refuted, whether they offered it from their own wealth or earmarked it from his price from the estate. In this division, there is another harm, because he cannot be secure from the future establishment of another debt, which would cause him to revert to him. If they hand the price to the insolvent person, and he offers it to the seller, the seller does not have the right of rescission; because the inability to deliver the price has ceased, so the right of rescission has ceased, just as if the other creditors waived their rights against him, thus enabling him to perform the payment. If the creditors waived their rights against him, and he became able to perform, or wealth was gifted to him, making it possible for him to perform from it, or the value of his assets rose so that their value became sufficient for the rights of the creditors to the extent that he could pay the entire price, the seller would not have the right of rescission; due to the disappearance of its cause, and because it became possible for him to receive the price of his goods from the buyer, so he has no right of rescission, just as if he had not become insolvent.

Section: If the insolvent person purchases an item from a person after the interdiction (hajr) has been established upon him regarding his liability,