If we say that he returns it, then he is liable for the value of what he destroyed. Ahmad said regarding a man who bought a slave girl along with a head-covering, and he stipulated it, then discovered a defect while the head-covering had been destroyed: He is liable for its value in proportion to its share of the price.

Section: Whatever ornaments are upon the slave or the slave girl are in the same status as his wealth, according to what we have mentioned. As for clothing, Ahmad said: What he was wearing at the seller’s [location] belongs to the purchaser, but if it is clothing he wears over his [other] clothing, or something he uses to adorn him, it belongs to the seller unless the purchaser stipulates it. He means that clothing which he customarily wears for service and labor enters the sale, unlike clothing which he uses for adornment; because it is the custom for work clothes to be sold along with him, and because his interests and needs are tied to them, as he cannot do without them, so they follow the same course as the keys to a house. This is contrary to fine clothing, for it is an addition beyond the norm, and the slave’s need is not tied to it, but rather the master puts it on him so he might be adorned by it, and this is the master’s need, not the slave’s need. Custom has not established that it is included, so it follows the course of the curtains in a house or the mount one provides for him to ride, despite their inclusion in the report, remaining upon the original [state]. Ibn Umar said: Whoever sells a female slave and adorns her with clothes, the one who buys her owns what is upon her, unless the one who sold her stipulates it. Al-Hasan and al-Nakha'i also said this. We argue based on the report narrated by Ibn Umar, and because the clothing is not encompassed by the wording of the sale, nor does custom dictate its sale along with him, so it is analogous to the rest of the seller's wealth. Furthermore, it is an adornment for the sold item, so it is analogous to if one adorned a house with a rug or a curtain.

Section: The slave does not own anything if his master has not given him ownership, according to the generality of the scholars. The literalists (Ahl al-Zahir) said: He does own, due to his inclusion in the generality of His saying, the Almighty: "He has created for you all that is on the earth," and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever sells a slave who has wealth," for he attributed the wealth to him with the 'lam' of ownership. We argue based on His saying, the Almighty: "Allah presents an example: a slave who is owned, who has no power over anything," and because his master owns his person and his benefits, so whatever results from that must belong to his master, like his beast.