creditors. But if it was in bales and some of them perished, he takes them at their value if he finds them specifically, because the sound portion of the sold item was found by the seller specifically, so it enters into the generality of his statement (peace be upon him): "Whoever finds his commodity specifically with a person who has become insolvent, he is more entitled to it." And because it is a sold item that he found specifically, the seller is entitled to reclaim it, just as if it were the entire sold item.

Section: If he sells part of the sold item, or gifts it, or dedicates it as a waqf, it is in the position of it having perished, because the seller did not find his property specifically.

Section: If the financial value of the sold item decreases due to the loss of a quality while its substance remains—such as a slave who becomes thin, forgets a craft or writing, ages, becomes ill, or his intellect changes, or if it were a garment and it becomes worn—it does not prevent reclamation, because the loss of a quality does not remove it from being the substance of his property. However, he is given the choice between taking it back in its diminished state for his full entitlement, or ranking with the creditors for the full price, because the price is not apportioned based on the quality of the commodity, whether it is fatness, thinness, knowledge, or the like; thus, it becomes like its decrease due to changes in market prices. If the sold item was a non-virgin female slave and the buyer had intercourse with her and she did not become pregnant, he has the right to reclaim her based on what we have mentioned, for she has not decreased in substance or qualities. If she was a virgin, the Qadi said: He has the right to reclaim her, because she has lost a quality, as no part of her has gone, and it is merely like a wound. Abu Bakr said: He does not have the right to reclaim her, because he has removed a part of her, so it resembles the case where he poked out her eye. If the act of intercourse occurred from someone other than the insolvent person, it is like the intercourse of the insolvent person in regard to what we have mentioned.

Section: If the slave is wounded or has a head injury, then according to the view of Abu Bakr, he does not reclaim him, because a part has gone that decreases the price, so it resembles the case where the eye of the slave is poked out, because a part of the substance that has a substitute has gone, thus preventing reclamation, just as if the hand of a slave were cut off. Furthermore, if he were only diminished in a quality, the seller would not have anything of the right of reclamation except that, as we mentioned regarding the thinning of a slave or the forgetting of a craft, and here it is otherwise. Also, because reclamation in the specified instance cuts off the dispute and removes the transaction between them, it does not hold in an instance that does not achieve this intended result. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that he has the right of reclamation, because he has lost a quality, so it resembles the forgetting of a craft and the wearing out of a garment.