as it holds that he may rescind for the Muslim all of the subject matter of the salam contract, is evidence that iqalah is not a sale. Also, because it is permissible regarding the subject matter of a salam contract before taking possession of it, it is not a sale, like abatement [isqat]. Furthermore, it is fixed to the initial price; had it been a sale, it would not be fixed (4) to it. Additionally, the sold object returns to him by a phrasing that does not effectuate a sale, therefore it is a dissolution [faskh], like returning [a good] due to a defect. It is argued against Abu Hanifah that what is a dissolution in the rights of the two contracting parties is a dissolution regarding the rights of others, like returning [a good] due to a sale and dissolution by option [khiyar]. Also, the reality of dissolution does not differ in relation to one person versus another, and the principle is to consider realities.

Section: If we say: It is a dissolution. It is permissible before taking possession and after it. Abu Bakr said: It requires a second measurement [in transactions requiring weighing/measuring], and the dissolution takes the place of a sale in mandating a second measurement, like the dissolution of a marriage taking the place of a divorce regarding the 'iddah (waiting period). Our position is that it is a dissolution of the sale, so it is permissible before taking possession, like returning [a good] due to a defect, deception, dissolution by option, or a disagreement between the two contracting parties. It differs from the 'iddah, for that was considered for the purpose of istibra' (ascertaining the absence of pregnancy), and the need for it exists in every separation after consummation, unlike our issue. If we say: It is a sale. It is not permissible before taking possession [in matters where taking possession is considered] (5); because selling it back to its seller before taking possession of it is not permissible, just as it is not permissible from anyone else. Pre-emption [shuf'ah] is not established by it if it is a dissolution, because it is an annulment of the contract and an erasure of it, not a mutual exchange; thus it resembles other forms of dissolution. Whoever swears not to sell and then rescinds [via iqalah] does not violate his oath. If it were a sale, pre-emption would be established by it, and the one who swore to abstain from selling would violate his oath by doing so, like other types of sale. It is not permissible except for the equivalent of the price, whether we say it is a dissolution or a sale; because it is specifically designated for the equivalent of the price, like a tawliyah (transfer at cost) contract. There is another opinion, that it is permissible for more than the initial price, and less than it, if we say: it is a sale, like other sales. If we say: it is not permissible except for the equivalent of the initial price, and he rescinds for less than it or more, the iqalah is not valid, and the ownership remains with the buyer. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. It is reported from