a partner to him to the extent of the increase of the dye, and he claims with the creditors for the price of the dye. It is also possible that he may reclaim both of them in this case, because he has found the substance of his property distinct from anything else, and thus he has the right of reclamation over it, based on the report, and because the rationale for the place in which the right of reclamation is established is present here, so he possesses the right of reclamation over it just as he possesses it there. If he were to buy shelves and nails from one man and fastened them [to a wall] with them, the seller of both would reclaim them in the same way, and likewise for what is similar to that.

Section: If one buys a garment and fulls it, there are two possible situations. The first is that its value does not increase by doing so, in which case the seller has the right of reclamation over it, because the substance of his property is present, its name has not vanished, and neither has any part of it been lost nor has it joined with something else, so he has the right of reclamation over it, just as if he had taught the slave a craft that did not increase his value. This is the same whether its value decreased as a result or did not decrease, because such a decrease is a decrease in quality, so it does not prevent reclamation, like the forgetting of a craft or the emaciation of a slave, and he has nothing else upon reclamation. The second situation is that its value increases as a result, in which case the seller does not have the right of reclamation, according to the analogy of Al-Khiraqi’s view, because the garment has increased with an increase whose surplus is not distinct, so the seller does not possess the right of reclamation over it, just as if a slave grew fat, and because he did not find the substance of his property distinct from something else, so he does not possess the right of reclamation, like the seller of dye when it is dyed [into a garment] or oil when it is mixed into sawiq. Al-Qadi and his companions said: He has the right of reclamation over it, because he has retrieved his property in its specific state, and because he found the substance of his property with its name unchanged and its substance not having vanished, so he possesses the right of reclamation over it, just as if he had dyed it. According to their view, if the fulling was by the work of the insolvent person or by a wage he paid, then they are both partners in the garment. If the value of the garment is five and it becomes worth six, the insolvent person has one-sixth of it and his seller has five-sixths. If the seller chooses to pay the value of the increase to the insolvent person, he is obligated to accept it, because he thereby dissociates from the harm of partnership without any harm befalling him, so it is like the case where the pre-emptor pays the value of the building to the buyer. And if he does not choose [that],