Section: The third condition is that the seller must not have received any part of the price. If he has received a portion of the price, the right of reclamation is forfeited. This is the opinion of Ishaq and al-Shafi'i in his early (qadim) view. In his new (jadid) view, he said: He has the right to reclaim the portion of the goods corresponding to the remaining part of the price, because this is a cause through which the entirety of the physical item (ayn) returns to the contracting party, so it is permissible for a portion of it to return, similar to the separation (furqah) before consummation in marriage. Malik said: He is given a choice; if he wishes, he may return what he received and reclaim the entire physical item, and if he wishes, he may participate with the creditors and not reclaim. Our position is based on what Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman narrated from Abu Hurayrah: that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Whoever sells a commodity, and then finds his commodity in its original state with a man who has become insolvent, and he had not received any of its price, then it is his. But if he had received some of its price, he is on par with the other creditors." This was narrated by Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and al-Daraqutni. Furthermore, reclaiming a portion corresponding to what remains would constitute splitting the contract for the buyer, which is harmful to him, and the seller does not have that right. If it is said: There is no harm to him in that, because his property will be sold anyway, so it will not remain with him, and thus the harm is removed, we say: The harm is not removed by the sale, for its value decreases due to fragmentation (tashqis), and it is not desired when fragmented, so the insolvent person and the creditors are harmed by the decrease in value. Moreover, this is a cause by which the sale is rescinded, so it is not permissible to fragment it, just like rescission due to a defect or the option of condition; and drawing an analogy of a sale upon a sale is more appropriate than drawing an analogy of it upon marriage. There is no difference whether the object sold is one single item or two items, due to the Hadith and the legal reasoning we mentioned. If it is said: Your Hadith is narrated by Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as a mursal (dispatched/incomplete chain) narration, and there is no proof in mursal narrations, we say: Malik and Musa ibn Uqbah have narrated it from al-Zuhri, from Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman, from Abu Hurayrah. This is how Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned it, and Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and al-Daraqutni extracted it in their 'Sunan' collections with a continuous (muttasil) chain. Therefore, the omission by one who omitted part of the chain does not harm the narration, for the narrator of the musnad (connected chain) version has an increase (ziyadah) that is not contradicted by the one who omitted it. Furthermore, even if it were a mursal narration, it is a valid proof, so its being mursal does not harm it.