If that is in a slave girl, it is a defect for which rescission is established. If it is in other than her, it is an addition for which he is not entitled to rescission, though it is possible that he is entitled to it, as he may want her for travel or for carrying something that he cannot manage while she is pregnant. If he stipulates that a hen will lay eggs, it has been said: It is not valid, because there is no mark upon her by which this can be known, and no legal status has been established for it in the Shari'ah. The preferred view is that it is valid, because it is known through custom, so it resembles the stipulation of a milch sheep. If he stipulates that a nightingale (hazar) or a collared dove (qumri) will sing, some of our companions said: It is not valid. Abu Hanifah held this view, because the singing of a bird may happen and may not happen. The preferred view is that it is permissible, because it contains a valid purpose, and it is a habit and nature of the bird, so it resembles the ambling (hamlaja) in a beast and the hunting (skill) in a leopard. If he stipulates regarding a pigeon that it will come from a distance he specifies, the Qadi said: It is not valid. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, because it involves torturing the animal, and the purpose of it is not valid. Abu al-Khattab said: It is valid, because this is an established custom, and it has a valid purpose for delivering news and carrying letters, so it runs in the same vein as hunting in a leopard and ambling in a beast. If he stipulates regarding a girl that she is a singer, it is not valid, because singing is condemned in the Shari'ah, so its stipulation is not valid, just like prostitution. If he stipulates that a ram should be a fighter or a rooster should be a fighter, the stipulation is not valid, because it is forbidden in the Shari'ah, so it follows the same ruling as singing in a girl. If he stipulates that a rooster will wake him for prayer, it is not valid, because he cannot fulfill it. If he stipulates that it will crow at known times, it follows the same ruling as stipulating singing in a collared dove, as we have mentioned.

Section: Returning [an item] due to a defect does not require the seller's consent, his presence, or the ruling of a judge, whether before taking possession or after it. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifah said: If it is before taking possession, it requires the presence of the other party but not his consent. If it is after it, it requires his consent or a judge's ruling, because his ownership of the price has been completed, so it cannot be dissolved except with his consent. Our argument is that it is the dissolution of a contract that he is entitled to, so it does not require the other party's consent or presence, like divorce; because he is entitled to return it due to the defect, so it does not require the other party's consent, just as in the case before taking possession.