separation, or of the type that separation is not permitted between them, such as a child with its mother, he has no recourse except to return both, or to keep both and take the compensation. If they are not like that, there are two narrations concerning them. The first is that he has no recourse except to return both, or to take the compensation while keeping them. This is the apparent view of al-Shafi'i and the view of Abu Hanifah before taking possession, because returning one is a partial splitting of the transaction by the buyer, which he is not entitled to do, just as if they were of the type diminished by separation. The second [narration] is that he has the right to return the defective one and keep the sound one. This is the view of al-Harith al-'Ukli, al-Awza'i, and Ishaq. It is the view of Abu Hanifah after taking possession, because he returns the defective one in a manner that entails no harm to the seller, so it is permissible, just as if he returned both. It differs from that which is diminished by separation, as there is harm in that. If one of the two sold items is destroyed, or becomes defective, or he finds a defect in the other or in both, and he wishes to return it, the ruling follows the detail and disagreement we have mentioned. If they differ on the value of the destroyed item, the statement is that of the buyer along with his oath, because he is a denier of what the seller claims regarding the increase of its value; he is in the position of one liable, for when the value of a destroyed item increases, the amount he is liable for increases, so he is in the position of one who borrows or usurps. As for if both sold items are remaining and defective, and in neither of them is there anything preventing its return, and he wishes to return one of them without the other, the Qadi said: He has no right to do so, and did not mention anything regarding it other than the prohibition of returning one of them. The logic (qiyas) is that it is like the one preceding it, since if keeping one of them were an impediment to return when both are defective, it would have been an impediment if it were sound.

Section: If two people purchase something and find it to be defective, or they stipulate the option (khiyar) and one of them expresses approval, there are two narrations from Ahmad, which Abu Bakr and Ibn Abi Musa have related. The first is that whoever did not express approval has the right to rescind (faskh). Ibn Abi Layla, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad held this view, and it is one of the two narrations from Malik. The other [narration] is that it is not permissible for him to return it. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and Abu Thawr; because the sold item left his ownership in a single batch, not fragmented. Thus, when he returns it while it is held in common, he returns it diminished, resembling the case where it became defective while in his possession. The reasoning for the first [view] is that he returned all that he owned by virtue of the contract,