of the garment. Thus, when he reclaims it, we examine the wound: if it is of a type that carries no arsh (indemnity), such as what results from the act of Allah the Exalted, the action of an animal, an offense by the insolvent person, an offense by his slave, or an offense the slave committed against himself, then he has no right to any indemnity along with the reclamation. If the wound necessitates an indemnity, such as an offense by a third party, then the seller, when reclaiming, may rank with the creditors for the portion of the price that was lost, and he examines how much its value has decreased, then reclaims the portion of the price corresponding to that; because it is guaranteed by the buyer to the seller through the price. If it is said: Why did you not grant him the indemnity that was incumbent upon the third party? For if no indemnity were due for it, he would not reclaim anything, and it is not permissible for him to reclaim more than the indemnity. We say: When the third party destroyed it, it became guaranteed to the insolvent person by virtue of his destruction of it, so the indemnity is his, and it is guaranteed by the insolvent person to the seller through the price, so it is not permissible for him to guarantee it with the indemnity. And if a third party did not destroy it, it was not guaranteed, so nothing became due for its loss. If it is said: Why was this indemnity not for the buyer, like his earnings, which he does not guarantee to the seller? We say: Earnings are a substitute for its usufruct, and its usufruct is owned by the buyer without compensation, whereas this is a substitute for a part of the substance, and the substance in its entirety is guaranteed by the compensation, and for this reason, he guaranteed it for the buyer.

Section: If he buys oil and mixes it with another oil, or wheat and mixes it with something from which it cannot be distinguished, the right of reclamation lapses. Malik said: He takes his oil back. Al-Shafi'i said: If he mixes it with its like or something inferior, the right of reclamation does not lapse, and he may take his commodity by measure or weight. If he mixes it with something of higher quality than it, there are two opinions; one of them is that his right to the substance lapses. Al-Shafi'i said: This is what I hold. They argued that the substance of his property exists in terms of legal ruling, so he has the right of reclamation just as if it were separate, and because it contains nothing more than the mixing of his property with another's, so it does not prevent reclamation, just as if he bought a garment and dyed it, or sawiq (parched flour) and moistened it. We say: He has not found the substance of his property, so he has no right of reclamation, just as if it had perished, and because what he takes is not the substance of his property; rather, he is taking it as a substitute for his property, so he does not have exclusive right to it over the creditors, as is the case if his property had perished. The statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whoever finds his commodity specifically..." means whoever has the capacity for it and is able to take it from the insolvent person; evidenced by the case if he finds it after the ownership of the insolvent person has ceased, or if it were nails that he used to nail a door, or a stone