regarding what is after possession, for its possession does not prevent returning it before consummation. As for what was acquired by inheritance, will, or spoils of war, and its ownership has become specified, it is permissible for him to dispose of it through sale or otherwise before taking possession of it; because it is not guaranteed through a commutative contract, so it is like a sold item that has been possessed, and this is the school of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, and I do not know of anyone other than them who disagrees with them. If a person has a deposit, a loaned item, a mudaraba capital, or has made someone else an agent over it in the hands of another, it is permissible for him to sell it to the one in whose hand it is, and to someone else; because it is a specific property capable of being delivered, and there is no fear of the ownership being rescinded, so its sale is permissible, just as if it were in his own hand. If it is usurped (ghasb), it is permissible to sell it to the one in whose hand it is; because it is possessed along with him, so it resembles the sale of a loaned item to the one in whose hand it is. As for selling it to someone else, if he is unable to recover it, or thinks that he is unable, his purchase of it is not valid; because it is held back from being delivered to him, so it resembles the sale of a runaway slave or a stray animal. If he thinks he is capable of recovering it from the one in whose hand it is, the sale is valid; due to the possibility of taking possession of it. If he is unable to recover it, he has the choice between rescinding or upholding [the contract]; because the contract was valid due to the assumed ability to take possession of it. The right to rescission is established for him due to the inability to take possession, so it resembles the case where he sold him a horse that ran away before it was delivered, or an absent item [described] by its attributes, and he was unable to deliver it.

Section: If Zayd has food owed to him by a man as a result of a Salam contract, and he owes a similar amount of that food to 'Amr as a Salam contract, and Zayd says to 'Amr: "Go and take possession of the food that is mine from my debtor for yourself." And he does so, it is not valid; because it is not permissible for him to take possession of it for him before he himself takes possession of it. And does it become valid for Zayd? There are two narrations: one of them is that it is valid; because he gave him permission to take possession, so it resembles the possession of his agent. The second is that it is not valid; because he did not make him his deputy in taking possession, so it did not occur on his behalf, unlike the agent. Thus, based on the first view, it becomes the property of Zayd, and based on the second, it remains the property of the one against whom the Salam was contracted. If Zayd said to 'Amr: "Attend my weighing of it from him so that I may take possession of it for you." And he did so, it is not valid. And is he considered as having taken possession for himself? There are two views; the first of them is that he is considered as having taken possession for himself; because the taking of possession of the Salam commodity has occurred by its entitled party, so the possession is valid for him, just as if he intended the possession for himself. Based on this, if he took possession of it for 'Amr, it is valid. And if he said: "Take it by this weight that you have witnessed."