of dates whose measure is unknown for a heap of dates whose measure is unknown (11). Furthermore, it is specific to measured and weighed items, so we apply analogy to the case of dispute. The analogy mentioned [by the opposing side] is incorrect because measured items of a single genus require equality, so their sale by estimation is prohibited due to the absence of the required equality. In the case of two different genera, equality is not required, and the reality of disparity is not prohibited, so the mere probability of it is even more entitled to not being a barrier.

Section: If someone says, "I sell you this heap for this heap," and they are of the same genus, and they do not know their measures, it is not valid (12) for the reason we mentioned. If they know their measures and their equality, the sale is valid, due to the presence of the required equality. If he says, "I sell you this heap for this heap, measure for measure," and they are measured and found to be equal, the sale is valid; otherwise, it is not. If he sells a heap for a heap of a different genus, it is valid according to those who permit the sale of a measured item for a measured item by estimation. If he says, "I sell you this heap for this heap, measure for measure," and they are measured and found to be equal, the sale is valid. If one of them is greater and the owner of the smaller portion accepts it despite its deficiency, or the owner of the greater portion accepts returning the excess to its owner, it is permissible. If both refuse, the sale between them is rescinded. The Qadi mentioned this section (13), and it is the school of al-Shafi'i.

Section: It is permissible to divide measured items by weight, weighed items by measure, fruits by estimation, and items for which it is not permissible to sell a part for another; because partition is an allocation of a right, not a sale. It was reported from Ibn Batta that which indicates that it is a sale, so the rules of sale are established for it, and what we mentioned [regarding the prohibition of estimation] is prohibited therein; because every part of that is jointly owned between them. So when a right is specified for each of them, he has bought the share of his partner from what was specified for him with his share in what was specified for his partner. For al-Shafi'i, there are two opinions, like the two schools. The apparent view is that it is an allocation of a right, as evidenced by the consideration of adjusting the shares,