to it". It is unanimously agreed upon (1). Ahmad said: If a judge rules that he is equal to the other creditors, then the case is brought to a man who believes in acting upon the Hadith, it is permissible for him to overturn that ruling. This is because this contract is subject to rescission by mutual cancellation (iqalah), so rescission is permissible therein due to the inability to provide the substitute, just as in the case of a salam sale when the commodity is unobtainable. Furthermore, if a pledge was stipulated in the sale and the purchaser was unable to deliver it, the seller would be entitled to rescission; since the pledge is security for the price, being unable to deliver the price itself is even more deserving of this right. The sold item differs from a pledge, as holding a pledge is merely for security and is not a substitute for the debt, whereas the price here is a substitute for the specific item; thus, if it is impossible to receive it, one returns to the original item. Regarding their claim that they are equal in the cause of entitlement, we respond: However, they differ regarding the condition, for the continued existence of the specific item is a condition for the right of rescission, and this is present in the case of one who finds his property, unlike the one who does not. Once this is established, the seller has the option: if he wishes, he may reclaim the goods, and if he wishes, he may refrain and be equal to the other creditors. It makes no difference whether the goods are equal in value to their price, or less, or more, because insolvency is a cause that establishes the permissibility of rescission, but does not necessitate it, similar to a defect or an option. Rescission does not require the judgment of a judge, as it is a rescission established by a text (nass), so it does not depend on a judicial decree, just like the rescission of a marriage due to the emancipation of a slave girl.

Section: Is the option of reclamation immediate (on the spot) or deferred? There are two opinions based on the option of return due to a defect, regarding which there are two narrations. The first is that it is deferred, because it is a right of reclamation that falls back to a substitute, so it is deferred, like the revocation of a gift. The second is that it is immediate, because it is an option established in a sale due to a deficiency in the substitute, so it is immediate, like the return due to a defect. Furthermore, allowing it to be delayed leads to harm to the other creditors, as it results in the delay of their rights, making it similar to the option of exercising the right of pre-emption (shuf'ah). Al-Qadi supported this view, and the followers of Al-Shafi'i hold two opinions similar to these.