with the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) on a journey, and he was on a difficult young camel, and he kept advancing ahead of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), so his father would say to him: "No one should advance ahead of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace)." The Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) said to him: "Sell it to me." Umar said: "It is yours, O Messenger of God." The Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) said: "It is yours, O Abdullah ibn Umar, so do with it as you wish." This indicates that disposition before departing is permissible. Our scholars mentioned another view regarding the validity of the buyer's disposition by way of endowment (waqf), because it is a disposition that voids preemption (shuf'a), so it resembles emancipation (itq). The correct view is that none of these dispositions are valid, because the sold item is attached to the right of the seller in a way that prevents the permissibility of disposition, thus preventing its validity, just like a pledge (rahn). Endowment differs from emancipation because emancipation is based on predominance and propagation, unlike endowment. As for the hadith of Ibn Umar, it does not contain an explicit statement of sale, for Umar's saying "It is yours" could imply he meant a gift, and this is the most apparent meaning, for he did not mention a price, and the option (khiyar) does not apply to a gift. Al-Shafi'i said: The seller's disposition of the sold item by sale, gift, and the like is valid; because either he is acting upon his own ownership, so he conveys ownership via the contract (20), or it belongs to the buyer and the seller has the right to rescind it, so he made the sale and the gift a form of rescission. As for the buyer's disposition, it is not valid if we say: "The ownership belongs to someone else." And if we say: "The ownership is his," there are two views regarding the validity of his disposition. We hold, regarding the invalidation of the seller's disposition, that he has disposed of property that is not his without legal authority or customary agency, so it is not valid, just as it is after the option period. To their statement (21): "He possesses the right of rescission," we say: However, the initiation of the disposition did not coincide with his ownership, so it was not valid, like the father's disposition of what he gifted to his child before reclaiming it, and the preemption claimant's disposition of the portion subject to preemption before taking it.

Section: If the buyer disposes of it with the seller's permission, or the seller does so with the buyer's agency, the disposition is valid, and both of their options are terminated; because that indicates their mutual consent to finalize the sale, so