along with one of these semblances, so how [much more so] if they are combined! Moreover, it is possible that the rescission occurs by touching before the actual intercourse, so the ownership would have returned to him before he had intercourse. For this reason, Ahmad said regarding the buyer that she has become binding upon him the moment he laid his hand upon her, in cases where he combed her, dyed her, or groomed her; so by laying his hand upon her for the purpose of intercourse and touching her private part with his, it is more fitting. According to this, his child from her is free, his lineage is attributed to him, he is not liable for the child's value, he does not owe a dower, and the slave becomes an Umm Walad for him. Our companions said: If he knew of the prohibition, the child is a slave, and his lineage is not attributed to him. If he did not know, the lineage is attributed to him, the child is free, he is liable for the child's value on the day of birth, he owes a dower, and the slave does not become an Umm Walad for him, because he had intercourse with her while she was not in his ownership.

Section: There is no harm in paying the price and taking possession of the sold item during the option period. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, while Malik disapproved of it. He said: Because it is in the meaning of a sale and a loan; if he pays him the price and then they rescind the sale, it becomes as if he had loaned it to him. We hold that this is one of the rulings of the sale, so it is permitted during the option period, like leasing. What he mentioned is not correct because we do not permit him to dispose of it.

Section: Al-Khiraqi's statement: "Or he dies." The manifest meaning is that he referred to the slave, returning the pronoun to him, which is in the same meaning as his statement "or the merchandise was destroyed." It is possible that he returned the pronoun to the buyer and meant that if the buyer dies, the option is voided; because the death of the slave has already been covered by his statement "or the merchandise was destroyed." The ruling on the death of the seller and the buyer is the same. The established school [madhhab] is that the option of the one who dies from among them is voided upon his death, and the option of the other remains as it was, unless the deceased had demanded the rescission before his death, in which case it belongs to his heirs. This is the view of al-Thawri and Abu Hanifa. It is also deduced that the option is not voided and transfers to his heirs, because it is a financial right, so it transfers to the heir like a deferred payment or the option to return for a defect. Furthermore, it is a right to rescind the sale, so it transfers to the heir like the [option of] return for a defect.