not say this word, but it is in the hadith of Ma'n. Furthermore, each one of them is both a claimant and a denier, so the oath is prescribed, just as in the state of the commodity's existence, and the meaning they mentioned is invalidated by the state of the commodity's existence, for that does not differ between the existence and destruction of the commodity. Regarding their saying: 'We abandoned it due to the hadith,' we say: 'The hadith does not contain: 'They shall mutually swear,' and that is not established in any of the reports.' Ibn al-Mundhir said: 'There is no hadith in this chapter that can be relied upon.' Moreover, if the fundamental principle (asl) is deviated from for a reason, it is necessary to extend the ruling with the extension of that reason; therefore, we draw an analogy to it. Rather, the ruling is established by evidence, for if mutual swearing is established while the commodity exists, despite the possibility of knowing its price through knowledge of its value, then the manifest [truth] is that the price is according to the value, so it is even more appropriate [to apply it] when that is impossible.
If they mutually swear, and one of them is satisfied with what the other said, the contract is not rescinded, because there is no need for its rescission. If they are not satisfied, then each of them has the right to rescind it, just as he has that [right] in the state of the commodity's existence. The price that the seller received is returned to the buyer, and the buyer pays the value of the commodity to the seller. If they are of the same genus and they are equal after taking possession, they offset the debts (taqassa). It is appropriate that mutual swearing and rescission not be prescribed if the value of the commodity is equal to the price claimed by the buyer, and the statement is that of the buyer along with his oath, because there is no benefit in the seller's oath nor in the rescission of the sale, since the result of that is returning to what the buyer claimed. If the value is less, there is no benefit to the seller in the rescission, so it is possible that the oath and rescission are not prescribed for him, because that is a harm to him without benefit, and it is possible that it is prescribed to obtain the benefit for the buyer. Whenever they disagree on the value of the commodity, they return to the value of its equal, described by its attributes. If they disagree on the attribute, the statement is the statement of the buyer along with his oath, because he is the debtor (gharim), and the statement is the statement of the debtor.
Section: If they mutually rescind (taqayala) the sold item, or it is returned due to a defect after the seller has received the price, then they disagree on
(5) In MS M: "li-tahsil" (to obtain).
يَقولوا هذه الكَلِمَةِ، ولكنَّها فى حَدِيثِ مَعْنٍ. ولأنّ كُلَّ واحدٍ مِنهما مُدَّعٍ ومُنْكِرٌ، فَيُشْرَعُ اليَمِينُ، كحالِ قِيامِ السِّلْعَةِ، وما ذَكَرُوه مِن المَعْنَى يَبْطُلُ بحالِ قِيامِ السِّلْعَةِ، فإنّ ذلك لا يَخْتَلِفُ بِقِيامِ السِّلْعَةِ وتَلَفِها. وقولُهم: تَرَكْناه للحَدِيثِ. قُلْنا: ليس فى الحَدِيثِ: "تَحَالَفا"، وليس ذلك بثابِتٍ فى شىءٍ مِن الأخبارِ. قال ابنُ المُنْذِرِ: وليس فى هذا البابِ حَدِيثٌ يُعْتَمَدُ عليه. وعلى أنّه إذا خُولِفَ الأصلُ لِمَعْنًى، وَجَبَ تَعْدِيَةُ الحُكْمِ بِتَعَدِّى ذلك المَعْنَى، فنَقِيسُ عليه، بل يَثْبُتُ الحُكْمُ بالبَيِّنَةِ، فإنّ التَّحالُفَ إذَا ثَبَتَ مع قِيامِ السِّلْعَةِ، مع أنّه يُمْكِنُ مَعْرِفَةُ ثَمَنِها للمَعْرِفَةِ بِقِيمَتِها، فإنّ الظّاهِرَ أنَّ الثَّمَنَ يَكُونُ بالقِيمَةِ، فمع تَعَذُّرِ ذلك أوْلَى. فإذا تَحَالَفا، فإنْ رَضِىَ أحَدُهما بما قال الآخَرُ، لم يُفْسَخِ العَقْدُ، لعَدَمِ الحاجَةِ إلى فَسْخِه، وإنْ لم يَرْضَيا، فلكُلِّ واحِدٍ مِنهما فَسْخُه، كما له ذلك فى حالِ بقاءِ السِّلْعَةِ، ويُرَدُّ الثَّمَنُ الذى قَبَضَه البائِعُ إلى المُشْترِى، ويَدْفَعُ المُشْتَرِى قِيمَةَ السِّلْعَةِ إلى البائِعِ، فإنْ كان مِن جِنْسٍ واحدٍ، وتساويا بعد التَّقابُضِ، تَقَاصّا. ويَنْبَغِى أنْ لا يُشْرَعَ التَّحالُفُ ولا الفَسْخُ، فيما إذا كانت قِيمَةُ السِّلْعَةِ مُساوِيَةً لِلثَّمَنِ الذى ادَّعاه المُشْتَرِى، ويَكُونُ القولُ قولَ المُشْتَرِى مع يَمِينِه، لأنّه لا فائِدَةَ فى يَمِينِ البائِعِ، ولا فَسْخِ البَيْعِ؛ لأنّ الحاصِلَ بذلك الرُّجُوعُ إلى ما ادَّعاه المُشْتَرِى، وإنْ كانت القِيمَةُ أقَلَّ، فلا فائِدَةَ للبائِعِ فى الفَسْخِ، فيَحْتَمِلُ أنْ لا يُشْرَعَ له اليَمِينُ ولا الفَسْخُ؛ لأنّ ذلك ضَرَرٌ عليه مِن غيرِ فائِدَةٍ، ويَحْتَمِلُ أنْ يُشْرَعَ لتَحْصُلَ (٥) الفائِدَةُ للمُشْتَرِى. ومتى اخْتَلَفا فى قِيمَةِ السِّلْعَةِ، رَجَعا إلى قِيمَةِ مِثْلِها، مَوْصُوفًا بِصِفَاتِها، فإنِ اخْتَلَفا فى الصِّفَةِ، فالقولُ قولُ المُشْتَرِى مع يَمِينِه، لأنّه غارِمٌ، والقولُ قولُ الغارِمِ.
فصل: وإنْ تَقَايَلَا المَبِيعَ، أو رُدَّ بِعَيْبٍ بعدَ قَبْضِ البائِعِ الثَّمَنَ، ثم اخْتَلَفا فى
(٥) فى م: "لتحصيل".
