or a debt, and regardless of whether it is equivalent to the price, or less, or more. Al-Batti said: If one sells a slave for one thousand dirhams, and he possesses one thousand dirhams with him, the sale is permissible if the purchaser’s desire is for the slave and not for the dirhams; this is because it entered the sale as an incidental, unintended item, thus it is analogous to the foundations of walls and the gilding of ceilings with gold. As for if the wealth is intended by the purchase, it is permissible to stipulate it if the conditions of sale are found in it, such as knowing it and there being no usury (riba) between it and the price, just as this is considered in the two assets being sold; for it is an intended object of sale, thus it is analogous to when one adds another asset to the slave and sells them both. The Qadi said: This depends on whether the slave possesses or does not possess. If we say he does not possess, then the purchaser’s stipulation of his wealth makes it an object sold along with him, so what is required for other sold items is required for it. This is the school of Abu Hanifa. But if we say he does possess, uncertainty (jahala) and other matters that we mentioned before are permissible in it because it is an incidental in the sale, not a primary object, thus it is analogous to the casing of wells. This contradicts the text of Ahmad and the statement of al-Khiraqi; for they both made the condition upon which the ruling differs to be the intention of the purchaser, and nothing else, which is the more correct view, God willing. The possibility of uncertainty (jahala) in it is due to it not being intended, as we have mentioned, like the milk in the udder of a sold ewe, the fetus in her womb, and the wool on her back; these are sold items, and uncertainty and other matters are permissible in them for the reason we have mentioned. It has been said that the wealth is not a sold object here; rather, the purchaser has merely left it in the slave’s ownership, and it does not pass from him to the seller. This is close to the former view.

Section: If one buys a slave and stipulates his wealth, then returns the slave due to a defect, or an option (khiyar), or rescission (iqala), he returns his wealth along with him. Dawud said: He returns the slave but not his wealth; because his wealth did not enter into the sale, so it is analogous to new growth occurring while in his possession. We argue that it is a distinct item of property that the purchaser took, which would not be obtained without the sale, so he returns it upon the annulment, just like the slave. Furthermore, when a slave has wealth, his value is higher; therefore, taking his wealth decreases his value, so he is not entitled to return him until he pays what removes the decrease in value. If his wealth is destroyed, and then he wishes to return him, it is in the status of a defect occurring while in the purchaser's possession; does it prevent the return? There are two narrations on this.