Ahl al-Layla. It was narrated from Zufar that he returns a sa' of dates or half a sa' of wheat, based on their position regarding Zakat al-Fitr and the Kaffara (expiation). Our position is the authentic hadith which we cited, and it is the relied-upon authority in this matter. It explicitly specifies dates, as he said: "If he wishes, he may return it along with a sa' of dates." In a wording recorded by al-Bukhari: "Whoever buys a musarrah sheep and milks it, if he is satisfied with it, he may keep it, and if he is displeased with it, then for its milking is a sa' of dates." In a version for Muslim, narrated by Ibn Sirin from Abu Hurayra from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "He shall return it, and return a sa' of dates, not Samra' (wheat)." In another version of his: "...food, not Samra'," meaning he does not return wheat. The intent by "food" here is dates, because it is stated generally in one of the two hadiths and specified in the other regarding the same case, and the general in such a context is interpreted according to the specific. The hadith of Ibn 'Umar is rejected in its apparent meaning by consensus, for there is no one who holds the view of requiring the equivalent of its milk or twice its milk in wheat. Furthermore, the narrator was in doubt about it, and the authentic hadiths contradicted it, so it is not to be relied upon. The analogy of Abu Yusuf contradicts the textual evidence (nass), so no regard is given to it, and it is not unlikely that the Shari'ah would specify the substitute for this destroyed property to put an end to litigation and repel dispute, just as it specified the substitute for a human and the blood money (diyah) for his limbs. It is not possible to interpret the hadith as meaning that the sa' was the value of the milk, and therefore he obligated it, for three reasons: First, the value is currency, not dates. Second, he obligated for the musarrah—whether camel or sheep—a sa' of dates in all cases, despite the variation in their milk. Third, its wording is general, thus encompassing every musarrah, and it does not follow that the value of the milk of every musarrah is exactly a sa'. Even if it were possible for it to be so, the obligation of the sa' remains fixed because it is the value that the Lawgiver (al-Shari') has designated for it; therefore, it is not permissible to deviate from it. Since this is established, it is necessary that the sa' of dates be of good quality, not defective, because it is an obligation by the absolute command of the Lawgiver, and thus it defaults to what we have mentioned, like the sa' required for Zakat al-Fitr. It is not required to be of the highest quality; rather, it is permissible for it to be of the lowest quality that still falls under the name of "good." There is no difference whether the value of the dates is equal to the value of the ewe's milk, or less, or more; Ahmad explicitly stated this. This is not a combination of the substitute (badal) and the original (mubdal), because the dates are a substitute for the milk, which the Shari'ah estimated as such, just as it estimated for the two hands of a slave his value, and for his two hands and two feet his value twice over, while the slave remains in the ownership of his master. If dates are unavailable in that location, he is liable for their value in the place where the contract was made, because it is equivalent to an item (ayn) he has destroyed, so he must pay its value.