and he derived profit from it for as long as Allah willed, then he found a defect in it and returned it. He said: 'O Messenger of Allah, he has derived profit from my slave,' so the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'The revenue is in return for liability.' It was narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Shafi'i, and Sa'id narrated it in his 'Sunan' from Muslim with this chain of narration, and he said therein: 'The revenue/yield is in return for liability.' Abu Hanifah, Malik, and al-Shafi'i held this view, and we know of no disagreement from others [regarding this]. The second type is that the increase is from the source of the sold item itself, such as offspring, fruit, and milk; this also belongs to the buyer, and he returns the original without them. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Malik said: If the growth is fruit, he does not return it, but if it is offspring, he returns it along with it; because the return is a legal ruling, and it extends to the offspring, just like [in the case of] writing [a contract of manumission]. Abu Hanifah said: Growth that occurs in the buyer's possession prevents the return, because it is not possible to return the original without it, since it is one of its requirements; therefore, the contract cannot be annulled while its requirement remains, and it is not possible to return it together with it because the contract did not cover it. Our argument is that it is an occurrence in the buyer's ownership, so it does not prevent the return, just as if it were in the seller's possession, and like earnings. Furthermore, it is a separate growth, so it is permissible to return the original without it, like earnings and fruit according to Malik. Their claim that the growth is a requirement of the contract is incorrect; rather, its requirement is ownership, and if it were a requirement of the contract, it would return to the seller upon rescission. Malik's statement is invalid because the offspring is not part of the sold item, so it cannot be returned by the ruling of returning the mother. What he mentioned is refuted by the transfer of ownership through gifting, sale, and other means, for it does not extend to the offspring by virtue of its existence in the mother. If it has diminished, we shall mention its ruling, if Allah the Exalted wills.

Section Four: If the sold item is a deflowered slave woman and the buyer has intercourse with her before knowing of the defect,