Section: If one sells an item in which usury applies for something other than its genus, while containing something from the genus of what it is sold for—provided it is not intended—such as a house whose ceiling is gilded with gold, it is permissible. I do not know of any disagreement regarding this. Likewise, if he sells a house for a house where the ceiling of each is gilded with gold or silver, it is permissible, because the part in which usury applies is not intended by the sale; its presence is as its absence. Likewise, if he buys a slave who has property, and he stipulates [the inclusion of] his property while it is of the same genus as the price, it is permissible if the property is not intended. If he buys a slave for a slave, and each of them stipulates the property of the slave they are purchasing, it is permissible if the property was not intended, because it is not intended by the sale, so it resembles gilding on a ceiling; for this reason, its sight is not stipulated for the validity or binding nature of the sale. If he sells a sheep that has milk for milk, or with wool on it for wool, or sells a milch sheep for a milch sheep, or [a sheep] with wool for the like of it, there are two opinions. One of them is permissibility, chosen by Ibn Hamid, and it is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, whether the sheep is alive or slaughtered, because that in which usury applies is not intended, so it does not prevent it, like the house with the gilded ceiling. The second is prohibition, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he sold usurious property for its origin from which it is derived, resembling an animal for meat. The difference between them is that the meat in the animal is intended, unlike milk. If the sheep were already milked of its milk, selling it for its like or for milk is permissible by a single opinion, because the milk has no effect and is not compensated by anything from the price, so it resembles the salt in sesame oil and bread and cheese, and barley grains in wheat; we know of no disagreement regarding this either. Likewise, if the separated milk is from a different genus than the sheep's milk, it is permissible in all cases. If he sells a palm tree with dates on it for dates, or for a palm tree with dates on it, there are also two opinions regarding it. One of them is permissibility, chosen by Abu Bakr, because the dates are not intended by the sale. The second is that it is not permissible. [The rationale for the two opinions] is what we mentioned in the preceding issue. The Judge chose the view that it is not permissible, and he differentiated between it and the milch sheep, based on the fact that it is valid to isolate the fruit for sale while it is known, unlike the milk in the sheep. This distinction is ineffective, for that which prevents [the sale] prevents it [in both cases], and if it is not valid to isolate it—like a decorated sword sold for the genus of its decoration—then that which does not prevent [the sale] does not prevent it, even if its isolation is valid, like the slave's property.