and Ibn al-Mundhir. There is another view, which is that the contract becomes void by the very impossibility of delivery, because the subject of the Salam is from the fruits of the current year, evidenced by the obligation to deliver from it; thus, when it perishes, the contract is void, just as if one sold a qafiz from a pile of grain and it perished. The first [view] is the correct one; for the contract is valid, but the delivery has become impossible, which is the same as if he bought a slave who then ran away before taking possession. There is no claim to [the subject] being specifically tied to this current year, for if they were to agree on paying the subject of the Salam from elsewhere, it would be permissible; he is only compelled to pay it from the fruits of the year to enable him to deliver what matches the specification of his right, and for that reason he is obligated to pay it from his own fruits if he finds them and does not find others, but they are not specifically tied to it. If partial delivery becomes impossible, the buyer has the option between rescinding the contract for the whole and taking back the price, or waiting until the time it becomes possible and demanding his right. If he prefers to rescind the contract regarding what is missing without the part that is present, he may do so, because the corruption occurred after the validity of the contract, so it does not necessitate corruption of the whole, just as if he sold him two piles of grain and one of them perished. There is another view: he may not rescind except for the whole, or he must wait, according to the disagreement we mentioned regarding cancellation (iqala) for part of the subject of the Salam. If we say that rescission is established by the very fact of the impossibility, it is rescinded regarding what is missing but not the part that is present, according to what we mentioned that corruption occurring on part of the subject of the contract does not necessitate the corruption of the whole, and the buyer has the option of rescission regarding the part that is present, as we mentioned in the first view.

Section: If a Christian enters into a Salam contract with a Christian for wine, and then one of them converts to Islam, Ibn al-Mundhir said: All the scholars from whom we have reports are in agreement that the Muslim takes back his dirhams. This is also what al-Thawri, Ahmad, Ishaq, and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y) said. We hold this view as well; for if the Muslim is the one who paid, he cannot rightfully receive the wine, so the reception of the subject of the contract has become impossible; and if he is the one who received the Salam, it has become impossible for him to deliver it, so the matter returns to his capital.

777 - Issue; He said: (He shall take possession of the full price at the time of the Salam before separating.) This is the sixth condition, which is that he must take possession of the Salam capital in the session of the contract; if they separate before that, the contract is void. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: It is permissible