and Ibrahim ibn Hani (16): Whatever consists of dirhams, dinars, and whatever is measured by volume or weight, its equal must be paid, not its price. The apparent meaning of this is the necessity of paying the equal for every item measured by volume or weight, unless it is something that involves craftsmanship, such as items made of iron, copper, or lead—such as vessels, tools, and the like—jewelry made of gold, silver, and similar materials, and textiles woven from silk, linen, cotton, wool, or hair, or anything spun from these. Such items are guaranteed by their price, because craftsmanship affects their value, and it varies; therefore, the price in such cases is more precise, rendering them similar to things that are not measured by volume or weight. Al-Qadi mentioned that a silver nugget (17) or a gold/silver ingot, as well as grapes, fresh dates, and pears, are only guaranteed (19) by their price. The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words supports what we have said. What is excluded is that which involves craftsmanship, for the reasons we mentioned. It is possible that the silver nugget be guaranteed by its price because it is impossible to find its equal except by breaking down minted dirhams and melting them, which involves destruction. According to this, if the item guaranteed by its price is of a currency type, its price must be paid in the most common currency of the land. If it is of a different type, it must be paid in any case. If it is of the same type and is weighted, it must be paid [by weight] (20). If it is less or more, it is valued in a different type so as not to lead to usury. Al-Qadi said: If it contains permissible craftsmanship and its value increased because of it, it is permissible to value it in its own type, because that is its price, and craftsmanship has a value. Similarly, if jewelry is broken, its arsh (indemnity for damage) must be paid. This differs from a sale, because craftsmanship does not have a corresponding exchange in contracts, whereas it does in cases of destruction. Do you not see that it cannot be independent in a contract, yet it is independent in guaranteeing it through destruction? Some of al-Shafi'i's companions said: This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Some of them mentioned the same as the first opinion, which is what Abu al-Khattab mentioned; because the price is taken by way of compensation, so any excess in it is usury.