possession, and physical custody is not a condition for the validity of a sale, as evidenced by the permissibility of selling held property (wadi'ah), inherited property, and the disposal of the dowry (sadaq) and the consideration for khul' (divorce initiated by the wife) according to Abu Hanifah.

Section: That which is not permitted to be sold before taking possession of it is not permitted to be sold back to its seller, due to the generality of the report regarding it. The Qadi said: If he purchases something that requires possession, and then meets him in another land, he may not demand it from him, nor may he take a substitute for it, even if they agree, because it is a sold item that has not been possessed. If it is something that does not require possession, it is permissible to take a substitute for it. If it is in a Salam (forward sale) contract, it is not permissible to take a substitute for it because its sale is also not permitted.

Section: Every consideration owned through a contract that is rescinded by its destruction before possession cannot be disposed of before taking possession of it, like that which we have mentioned. As for wages (ujrah) and the substitute for a settlement (sulh), if they are from measured, weighed, or counted goods, and [are of a nature] where the contract is not rescinded by their destruction, it is permissible to dispose of them before taking possession (19), such as the consideration for khul', manumission in exchange for wealth, the substitute for a settlement regarding blood money for intentional killing, indemnity for an injury, and the value of destroyed property, because the cause for disposal (20) is ownership, which has been established. However, that in which the risk of rescission due to the destruction of the subject matter is imagined, it is not permitted to build another contract upon it, to avoid uncertainty (gharar). And that in which such risk is not imagined, the obstacle is removed, so the contract is permissible; this is the view of Abu Hanifah. The dower (mahr) is likewise according to the Qadi, and it is the view of Abu Hanifah, because the contract is not rescinded by its destruction. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not permissible to dispose of it before taking possession. Abu al-Khattab mentioned it (21) regarding that which is not specified (22), because he fears its return due to the invalidation of its cause by apostasy before consummation, or its rescission by a cause on the part of the wife, or its reduction by half due to divorce, or its rescission by a cause not from her side. Al-Shafi'i stated the same regarding the consideration for khul'. This reasoning is invalid.