his order. If the slave is found to be subject to a claim of entitlement by another (mustahaq), the hundred [units of currency] must be returned to the one who paid it, because we have clarified that it was an invalid possession, so it is as if the hundred had not left the hand of the one who paid it. If the slave is found to be defective, and he returned him due to the defect, or by way of mutual cancellation (iqala), or if a man assigned something to a woman as a dowry and the husband divorced her (82) before consummation, or she apostatized, then is the return of the hundred [units of currency] binding upon the one who paid it, or upon the purchaser and the husband? There are two possible interpretations: One of them is that it is upon the payer, because the acquisition occurred from him, so the return is to him, like the one preceding it. The second is that it is upon the husband and the purchaser, because his payment is in the status of a gift to them, evidenced by the discharge of their liability, and a received gift (83) cannot be reclaimed. If the payment was with the permission of the purchaser and the husband, it is possible that the ruling on it is the same as if he had paid it without their permission, if he did so by way of voluntary contribution to them. It is also possible that its return is upon the husband and the purchaser if their contract is sound in every respect, because their permission for its delivery to the one to whom the debt is owed, when combined with the act of taking possession, acts in the place of their acceptance and possession, unlike the case when they did not permit it. If they permitted the payment of that on their behalf as a loan, then the return is upon them, and the lender may reclaim its equivalent from them.

Section: If a slave says to a man, "Buy me from my master," and he does so, and then the slave is found to have been emancipated, the liability (daman) is upon the master. Ahmad explicitly stated this. Abu Hanifa said the same, if the master was present when the slave deceived him; but if he was absent, the liability is upon the slave, because the deception (84) is from him. Our view is that [the master] (85) took the price without entitlement and guaranteed the warranty, so the liability is upon him, just as if he were present. If the slave is found to be usurped, or has a defect, and he is returned, the liability is upon the master for the reasons we have mentioned.