it was gray-haired, and he dyed its hair black. Their analogy is invalidated by the dyeing of hair, for its whiteness is not a defect, such as old age, yet if he deceives [the buyer] with it, the option is established for him. As for the swelling of the belly, it may result from eating and drinking, so there is no significance in attributing it to pregnancy; and furthermore, this analogy contradicts the textual evidence (nass), and following the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is more appropriate. Once this is established, the option is only granted on the condition that the buyer was not aware of the tasriya. If he was aware, the option is not established for him. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: An option is established for him in one view, due to the report, and because the cessation of milk did not actually occur—it might remain as it was—so that [knowledge] is not considered an expression of satisfaction, just as if a woman married an impotent man and then sought annulment. Our position is that he purchased it while knowing of the deception, so he has no option, just as if he purchased from one who dyed its hair while knowing of that. Because he entered into the transaction with insight, the right of return is not established for him, just as if he purchased a defective item while knowing of its defect. The preservation of milk as it was is rare and remote, so no ruling can be predicated upon it, and the original principle (asl) upon which they made their analogy is disallowed. If he purchased a musarrah and its milk production became customary and remained abundant, he has no right of return. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: He has the right of return in one of two views, due to the report and because the deception was present at the time of the contract, which establishes the right of return, just as if the milk had decreased. Our position is that the right of return was instituted to repel harm caused by the decrease in milk, and since that did not occur, the right of return is negated. Furthermore, no defect was found, and the description of the sold item did not differ from its state at the time of the contract, so no deception is established. Moreover, the option was established to repel harm, and no harm was found.

The Second Section: When he returns it, he is obligated to return a substitute for the milk. This is the view of everyone who permits its return, and it is stipulated in the Shari'ah as a sa' of dates, as stated in the authentic hadith which we cited. This is the view of al-Layth, Ishaq, al-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd, and Abu Thawr. Malik and some of the Shafi'is held that what is mandatory is a sa' of the staple food of the country, because in some versions of the hadith it says: "And return with it a sa' of food." In others, it states: "And return with it a similar amount or two similar amounts of its milk in wheat." Thus, he reconciled the hadiths, and he interpreted the specific mention of dates as being because they were the staple food of the city of Medina, and he specified wheat because it was the staple food of another country. Abu Yusuf said: He shall return the value of the milk, because it is compensation for destroyed property, so it is measured by its value, like other destroyed items. This was also narrated from Ibn