it is for the taking of possession to be delayed by two or three days or more, provided that this is not stipulated as a condition; for it is an exchange contract, and it does not cease to be a Salam contract simply by the delay of its taking possession, so it is similar to if it were delayed until the end of the session. Our view is that it is an exchange contract, and the stipulation of delaying the absolute consideration is not permissible within it, so it is not permissible to separate before taking possession, just as in Sarf (currency exchange), and the session is distinguished by what follows it, as evidenced by the ruling on Sarf. If he takes possession after [the session], then they separate, Al-Khiraqi’s statement implies that it is not valid, due to his saying: "in full". This was reported from Ibn Shubruma and al-Thawri. Abu al-Khattab said: Is it valid regarding that which was not taken into possession? There are two views, based on the division of the transaction (tafriq al-safqa). This is what is implied by the school of al-Shafi'i. Ahmad explicitly stated in the report of Ibn Mansur that if one pays three hundred dirhams as a Salam in various types; one hundred in wheat, [one hundred in barley], and one hundred in something else, and counterfeit coins were found among them, he returns [the payment] for the three types, for each type according to the amount of counterfeit coins found, and thus the contract is valid for the remainder in proportion to its share of the price. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said regarding one who pays one thousand to a man, and he takes possession of half of it and transfers him for the other half, or he had a debt against the one who received the Salam equal to half of it, and he calculated it against the one thousand: the Salam is valid in the half taken into possession, and void in the remainder. Thus, he declared the Salam void in what he did not take into possession, and validated it in what he did take into possession. It is reported from Abu Hanifa that he said: It is void in the case of transfer (hawala) in its entirety. In the other issue: It is void in what he did not take into possession and valid in what he did take into possession in proportion to it, based on the division of the transaction.

Section: If he takes possession of the price and finds it to be of poor quality, and he returns it, and the price was specified (mu'ayyan), the contract is void upon his returning it, and they may begin a new contract if they wish. If it was a debt, he may exchange it in the session, and the contract is not void upon his returning it; because the contract only occurred upon a sound price, and when he pays him that which is not sound, he has the right to demand the sound one, and the possession of the defective [item] does not affect the contract. If they separate and then he learns of its defect and returns it, there are two views: One of them is that the contract is void upon his returning it, due to the taking of possession occurring after the separation,