326 SHĀFI'I'S REASONING

that a slave was to be returned on account of a defect. If a defect develops whilst she is in the possession of the buyer, he has the right of regress [against the seller] for the amount by which the defect which the seller concealed from him diminishes her [value]. This right of regress works as follows. The value of the slave girl, free of the defect, is estimated and amounts to, say, one hundred; then her value, given the defect, is estimated and amounts to, say, ninety; the relevant value is that of the day on which the buyer took delivery of her from the seller, because on that day the sale became completed. Then the buyer has the right of regress against the seller for one-tenth of her price, whatever it amounted to, be it much or little; if he bought her for two hundred, he has the right of regress for twenty, if he bought her for fifty, he has the right of regress for five. Excepting always the case where the seller is prepared to take her back, free of charge, with the defect she developed whilst in the possession of the buyer; then the buyer is given the choice either to return her or to keep her without a right of regress.'

Tr. I, 12: 'If a man buys a slave or any merchandise with the stipulation that the seller, or the buyer, or both shall have the right of option during a term which they fix, the sale is valid provided the term is three days or less; but if it is longer, even by a single moment, the sale must be rescinded.¹ If someone asks: 'How does it come about that the right of option is valid if it is for three days, but not if it is for more', the answer is: Were it not for a tradition from the Prophet, it would be inadmissible for a right of option to exist for a moment after the two parties to a sale have separated, because the Prophet granted them the right of option only until they separated.² For it is inadmissible for the buyer to hand his money to the seller and for the seller to hand his slave girl to the buyer, without the seller being free to use the price of his merchandise and the buyer being free to use his slave girl; if we say that [notwithstanding the right of option] both are free to use their property, [this does not obviate the objection because] we hold at the same time that both must return it if one of them chooses