its commodity specifically with a man who has become insolvent, he is more entitled to it." (8) This [case] is not a matter of him finding his commodity specifically, nor is he more entitled to it by consensus, for they have agreed upon the necessity of leaving it and the lack of [the right of] returning to the item itself. Furthermore, the meaning of his statement: "Whoever finds his commodity specifically," means in a manner that allows him to take it, [and his right] does not attach to the item itself, and this is not such a case. As for legal reasoning, it is because the seller was only more entitled to the item of his property due to his right attaching to the item and the possibility of returning his property to him specifically, so he reverts to the one whose right attaches to mere liability, and here his right did not attach to the item, nor was it possible to return it to him. The benefit of reverting [in this case] became merely claiming the value instead of the specified [price], and this is not what is required in the place of the text, nor is it in its meaning; thus, establishing the ruling through it is an arbitrary exercise without evidence. If a man hires someone to transport cargo for him to a city, then the hirer becomes insolvent before any [cargo] is transported, the employer has the right of rescission. If he has transported some, or [covered] part of the distance, then according to the qiyas (analogy) of the school, he does not have the right of rescission, while according to the qiyas of Al-Qadi's statement, he does have that. If he rescinds, the obligation to transport the remainder falls away, and he ranks with the creditors for the portion of the specified wage for what he has carried. According to the qiyas of Al-Qadi's statement, the contract is rescinded in its entirety, and he ranks with the creditors for the portion of the equivalent wage for what he has carried, due to what we mentioned of his statement in the issue regarding which we have narrated his view.

Section: If one lends a person money, then the borrower becomes insolvent while the specific money exists, he has the right to reclaim it due to his (peace be upon him) statement: "Whoever finds his commodity specifically with a man who has become insolvent, he is more entitled to it." And because he is a creditor who found the item of his property, he is entitled to take it, like the seller. If he gives a woman specific property as a dower, then her marriage is rescinded for a cause on her part that causes her dower to lapse, or he divorces her before having consummated the marriage with her, so he becomes entitled to reclaim half of it, and she has become insolvent while he found the item of his property, he is more entitled to it, for the reason we have mentioned.