The first contract has been concluded, the defect did not appear, and its legal ruling was not attached to it. Furthermore, we have already mentioned in a similar case that the purchaser has the right to return it to the seller if an ancient defect is discovered. If he is not obligated to deduct the growth and yield, then this is even more appropriate here. According to this view, it follows that if he purchases it for ten, then sells it for twenty, then purchases it for ten, he should report that it was acquired at no cost. If he purchased it for ten then sold it for thirteen, then purchased it for five, he should report that it cost him two dirhams. If he purchased it for fifteen, he should report that it cost him twelve. Ahmad stated explicitly the likes of this. Based on this, he should subtract the profit from the second price regardless of what it is. If he did not make a profit, but purchased it a second time for five, he reports that, for it is the price of the contract that immediately follows the murabaha. If he incurred a loss on it, such as if he purchased it for fifteen, then sold it for ten, then purchased it for any price, he reports that. It is not permissible to add the loss to the second price and report it in the murabaha, without any difference of opinion that we know of. This demonstrates the correctness of what we have mentioned, and Allah knows best.

Section: Everything that we have said he is obligated to report in a murabaha and disclose—if he does not do so, the sale is not rendered invalid, but the purchaser is established with the option between taking it and returning it, except in the case of reporting more than the capital cost, according to the opinion we previously presented regarding that. If he purchased it for a deferred price and did not disclose the situation, then according to Ahmad, he has the option between taking it at the price upon which the contract was concluded immediately and annulling it. This is the school of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, because the seller was not satisfied with the purchaser, and his creditworthiness might be lower than the seller's, so he is not compelled to be satisfied with that. Ibn al-Mundhir related from Ahmad that if the sold item is still extant, he may have it until the term—meaning if he wishes, he may annul—and if it has been consumed, the purchaser retains the price for the duration of the term. This is the view of Shurayh, because that is how it was imposed upon the seller, so it is necessary that the purchaser be able to take it on those terms, just as if he had reported more than the price. The fact that he was not satisfied with the purchaser's creditworthiness does not prevent the sale from being effective on those terms, just as when he reports a higher price, he is not satisfied with selling it except at what he reported, yet he does not pay heed to his satisfaction, but rather it is necessary to revert to what the first sale was concluded upon. It is the same here.