and Ikrimah. Malik and Ishaq held this view, and it was narrated from Tawus. Malik said: Scholars have always forbidden this. From Ahmad, it is reported that this is disliked (makruh) but not forbidden (muharram); for Bakr ibn Muhammad narrated from his father that he asked him about a man who sells food in bulk (juzafan) while he knows its measure. I said to him: Malik says: If he sells the food and the purchaser does not know, then if he wishes to return it, he may return it. He said: This is a severe reprimand, but it does not please me if he knows its measure, unless he informs him. If he sells it, it is binding upon him, though he has done wrong. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i saw no harm in this, because if the sale is valid while they are both ignorant of its quantity, then it is more appropriate when one of them has knowledge. The view of the former is based on what al-Awza'i narrated, that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Whoever knows the quantity of a thing, let him not sell it in bulk until he clarifies it" (1). The Qadi said: It is narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he forbade selling food in bulk while knowing its measure (1). Prohibition implies unlawfulness, and also the consensus which Malik transmitted; and because the appearance is that the seller would not turn to selling in bulk while knowing the measure of the weight, unless it is for the sake of deceiving the purchaser and defrauding him, and this has an effect on the non-binding nature of the contract. The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Whoever deceives us is not of us." Thus it is as if he concealed a defect. If he sells what he knows the measure of as a pile, the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words in the narration of Muhammad ibn al-Hakam is that the sale is valid and binding. This is the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i, because the sold item is known to both of them, and there is no deception from either one, so it resembles the case where they both know its measure or are both ignorant of it. The report narrated concerning the prohibition is not established; rather, Ahmad deemed it disliked out of caution (karahat tanzih) due to the disagreement of scholars on it. Furthermore, their equality in knowledge or ignorance is further from deception. The Qadi and his companions said: This is equivalent to concealment (tadlis) and fraud. If the purchaser knows of it, he has no option, because he entered into it with insight, as if he bought a "musarrah" (an animal with milk withheld in the udder) while knowing its status. If he did not know that the seller was aware of it, he has the option to dissolve or confirm the sale. This is the position of Malik, because it is deception and uncertainty (2) on the part of the seller, so the contract is valid with him, and the option is established for the purchaser. A group of our companions held that the sale is void (fasid), because it is forbidden, and prohibition implies corruption (fasad).