فَإِنْ قَتَلَ الْمُشْتَرِي الْعَبْدَ أَوْ كَانَ طَعَامًا فَأَكَلَهُ لَمْ يَرْجِعْ عَلَيْهِ بِشَيْءٍ فِي قَوْلِ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَقَالَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٌ: يَرْجِعُ
Translation: If the buyer killed the enslaved person, or consumed purchased food, Abu Hanifah holds that no defect compensation is recovered; Abu Yusuf and Muhammad allow compensation.
Here Quduri expressly records a difference: Abu Hanifah denies arsh in the stated buyer-caused destruction/consumption cases, while Abu Yusuf and Muhammad allow it.
A nonhuman illustration is food consumed before a claim for its previously existing defect is evaluated. The key question is how the purchaser’s act of consuming or destroying the item affects compensation.
The historical killing clause is quoted for textual completeness, not as present authorization.