the buyer knows of the defect. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Ibrahim, al-Hakam, and Hammad said: He is not acquitted except from what was specified. Shurayh said: He is not acquitted except from what he showed him or placed his hand upon. Similar is narrated from Ata, al-Hasan, and Ishaq, because this is an act of benevolence in the sale which is not established except by condition; therefore, it is not established in the case of ignorance, like the option to rescind (khiyar). The second narration is: He is acquitted from every defect he did not know about, and he is not acquitted from a defect he knew of. This is narrated from Uthman, and a similar position from Zayd ibn Thabit. This is the opinion of Malik. It is also the opinion of al-Shafi'i specifically regarding animals; this is because it is narrated that Abdullah ibn Umar sold a slave to Zayd ibn Thabit on the condition of acquittal from defects for eight hundred dirhams. Zayd found a defect in him and wanted to return him to Ibn Umar, but he did not accept it. They brought the case to Uthman, who said to Ibn Umar: "Do you swear that you did not know of this defect?" He replied: "No." So he returned it to him, and Ibn Umar sold it for a thousand dirhams. This is a well-known case that was not contested, so it constitutes a consensus (ijma). It is narrated from Ahmad that he permitted acquittal from an unknown [defect], and from this, the validity of acquittal from every defect can be inferred. This is also narrated from Ibn Umar and is the opinion of the scholars of jurisprudence (Ashab al-Ra'y) and al-Shafi'i. This is because Umm Salamah narrated that two men disputed over old inheritances before the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Cast lots, make an effort to be fair, and let each of you absolve the other." This indicates that acquittal from the unknown is permissible, and because it is an act of waiving a right in which there is no delivery of an object, it is valid even if unknown, similar to manumission (ataq) and divorce (talaq). There is no difference between an animal and other things, for whatever is established in one of them is established in the other. Furthermore, the statement of Uthman was opposed by Ibn Umar, and the statement of a Companion (Sahabi) when opposed [by another] does not remain a proof.

Section: If we say that the condition of acquittal from defects is not valid, then including it as a condition does not invalidate the sale according to the apparent [view of the] school of thought. This is also a position of the followers of al-Shafi'i, because Ibn Umar sold with the condition of acquittal, and they reached a consensus on its validity, and no one objected to it. According to this, return (radd) is not prevented by the existence of the condition,