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.

Section: If one learns of the tasriya (deliberate withholding of milk) before milking the animal—for instance, if the seller admits to it or someone whose testimony is accepted testifies to it—he has the right to return it without any additional payment. This is because the dates were only made mandatory as a substitute for the milk that was extracted, and this is why the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "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." Since he did not extract milk for it here, he is not obligated to return anything along with it. This is the view of Malik. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: This is a matter upon which there is no disagreement. As for the case where he milks it but leaves the milk in its original state and then returns the animal, he returns its milk as well, and he is not obligated to provide anything else, because if the sold item is present, he returns it, and the substitute is not required. If the seller refuses to accept the milk and demands the dates instead, he is not entitled to do so, provided the milk is in its original, unaltered state. It has been argued that the seller is not required to accept it, based on the apparent meaning of the report and because it has diminished in quality due to milking, whereas keeping it in the udder preserves it better. Our position is that since he is able to return the original item (mubdal), the substitute (badal) is not required, just like all other cases where the original is returned along with its substitutes. The "milking" intended is that which necessitates the return of dates in the absence of the milk, according to his words: "For its milking is a sa' of dates," and for the reason we have mentioned. Their claim that the udder preserves it better is incorrect, because it cannot be kept in the udder indefinitely, and its retention is harmful to the animal. If the milk has changed,