If they rescind it, it becomes clear that it did not transfer, and if they finalize it, it becomes clear that it did transfer. As for us, it is a valid sale, so ownership is transferred immediately after it, just as if the option had not been stipulated. If the wealth is subject to Zakat, the year is interrupted by its sale due to the cessation of his ownership over it; if he reacquires it or it is returned to him, he must begin a new year, because it is renewed property that emerged after its cessation, so it is obligatory to begin a new year for it, just as if the sale were absolute without an option. The same ruling applies if they rescind the sale within the session due to their option, because it also does not prevent the transfer of ownership, so it is like the option of condition. If the year passes during the option period and then they rescind the sale, its Zakat is upon the buyer, because it is his property. If we hold the other narration, the year is not interrupted by its sale, because the seller's ownership did not cease. If the year passes over it during the option period, its Zakat is upon the seller; if he pays it from other wealth, the sale remains as is, but if he pays it from the asset itself, the sale of the paid portion is invalidated. As for whether it is invalidated regarding the remainder, there are two views, based on the division of the transaction. If he does not pay it until he has handed it over to the buyer and the option period has expired, the sale of it becomes binding, and he must pay it from other wealth, as is the case when one sells something upon which Zakat has become obligatory. If he buys a slave and the crescent moon of Shawwal appears, his Fitr [charity] is upon the buyer, even if it is during the option period, because it is his property; according to the other narration, it is upon the seller if it is during the option period, because it is his property, and because it is within the option period.