So the judge has the right to decide the matter for him because of its generality so that the ruling can be based on the appointment, so he says to him when you gave him this gift, what did you seek with it? Did you seek with it a reward from Paradise or compensation in this world or did you seek with it the Face of God? If the opponent says, did you seek with it the reward in the Hereafter from Paradise? Or compensation in this world, the one who gave it to him is ruled to return the item he took from him if the item remains, and if the item is gone, a ruling is given to him for the value. There is disagreement about whether the value in the thing is considered at the time of giving or at the time of decree, and if he says, “I gave it to seek the face of God.” He did not rule anything against him in that matter, and he said, “Your companion does not have the control of what you intended with your gift.” From one perspective, he confirmed it as a substitute for it, as appears, for