the entirety, and he would have no right of choice. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i. Abu Thawr said: He has the right to choose from among them, because this is a continuation of the contract, not an initiation of it, as evidenced by the fact that the conditions for a (new) contract are not required for it; thus, it resembles a revocable divorce (raj'ah). Our evidence is that this is a woman upon whom initiating a contract is not permissible in the state of Islam, so he does not possess the right to choose her, just like a woman observing a waiting period (iddah) from someone else, and like his unmarriageable kin (mahram). As for the revocable divorce, that is the stopping of the progression of the marriage toward definitive separation, while this is the establishing of a marriage with a woman. If he had consummated the marriage with them, then converted, and then they converted during their waiting period, the ruling remains the same. Abu Bakr said: He has no right of choice here; rather, they become definitively separated by the mere fact of his conversion, so that it does not lead to the continuation of a Muslim man’s marriage to a non-Muslim slave woman. Our evidence is that their conversion during the waiting period is equivalent to their conversion with him; this is why if they were free women who were Magians or idolaters, and they converted during their waiting period, it would be like their converting with him. And if they did not convert until their waiting period expired, their marriage would be annulled, whether they were People of the Book or not, because it is not permissible for him to continue a marriage with a slave woman who is a Person of the Book.

Section: If he converts while possessing the means (to marry free women), and they do not convert until he becomes indigent, and then they convert, he has the right to choose from among them; because the conditions of the marriage are considered at the time of choice, which is the time of their agreement upon Islam, and he is at that moment indigent and fears falling into sin, so he has the right of choice. If he converts while indigent, and they do not convert until he becomes wealthy, he does not have the right of choice; for the aforementioned reason. If one of them converts while he is wealthy, and then the remaining ones convert after he becomes indigent, he does not have the right to choose anything from them, because the time for choice began with the conversion of the first one. Do you not see that if he were indigent, he would have had the right to choose her? Thus, if he is wealthy, his right of choice lapses. If the first one converts while he is indigent, and the remaining ones do not convert until he becomes wealthy, the marriage of the first one becomes binding, and he does not have the right of choice from the remaining ones; because the first one had agreed with him in a state in which