he may return her, and nothing [additional] is with her. This has been narrated from Zayd ibn Thabit. This is also the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Uthman al-Batti. There is another narration from Ahmad that it prevents the return. This is also narrated from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and it is the view of al-Zuhri, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq, because intercourse is treated in the same manner as an offense, for it is never devoid of punishment or financial liability in the property of another; therefore, it must prevent the return, just as if she were a virgin. Shurayh, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, and Ibn Abi Layla said: He returns her, along with the compensation (arsh). They differed regarding this: Shurayh and al-Nakha'i said: It is one-half of one-tenth of her price. Al-Sha'bi said: It is a discretionary judgment (hukuma). Ibn al-Musayyab said: Ten dinars. Ibn Abi Layla said: It is the dower of her like (mahr al-mithl). Something similar to his statement was narrated from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Abi Musa mentioned it as a narration from Ahmad, because when he rescinds [the contract], he becomes one who has had intercourse in the property of another, due to the fact that rescission is an annulment of the contract from its inception. Our argument is that it is a matter that does not diminish her essence, nor her value, nor does it imply satisfaction with the defect; therefore, it does not prevent the return, just like the use of the item or the intercourse of a husband. What they have claimed is invalidated by the intercourse of a husband, and the intercourse of a virgin diminishes her price. Their statement that he is 'one who has had intercourse in the property of another' is not correct, because rescission is an annulment of the contract from the time of the rescission, not from its inception, as evidenced by the fact that it does not invalidate preemption (shuf'a), nor does it necessitate the return of earnings; thus, his intercourse is [considered] within his own property.

Section: If he bought a married woman and the husband had intercourse with her, that does not prevent the return, without any disagreement that we are aware of. If the buyer marries her and the husband has intercourse with her, and then he wishes to return her due to a defect, if that marriage is still ongoing, it is an emergent defect. If it has ended, its ruling is the same as the ruling of the master's intercourse. Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) deemed it preferable that it prevents the return, and this is attributed to the other narration, for there is no difference between this and the intercourse of the master. If she committed adultery while in the possession of the buyer, and he had not known of that from her, it is an emergent defect, and its ruling is the same as the ruling of emergent defects. It is also possible that it is considered