The second [category] is that the two sold items are such that the price is divisible between them according to their parts, such as a slave owned jointly by him and someone else, which he sells in its entirety without the permission of his partner, or two qafiz-measures from a single heap [of grain] which he sells, while he does not own except a portion of them. Regarding this, there are two views. One is that it is valid regarding what he owns for its proportional share of the price, and invalid regarding what he does not own. The second is that it is not valid in either of them. The basis for these two views is that Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] stated, regarding someone who marries a free woman and a slave woman, two narrations: one of which is that it is void for both, and the second is that it is valid regarding the free woman. The more appropriate [view] is that it is valid regarding what he owns, which is the position of Malik and Abu Hanifa, and it is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. In the other [opinion], he said: It is not valid. This is the position of Abu Thawr, because the transaction combined the lawful and the prohibited, so the prohibition prevails; and because if the transaction cannot be validated for the entire subject matter of the contract, it becomes void in its entirety, such as combining two sisters [in marriage], or selling one dirham for two. For us, [the evidence is] that each of them has a ruling [as if it were] standing alone; therefore, when he combines them, the ruling for each of them is established, just as if he sold a share of property and a sword. Also, because what is permissible for him to sell has had the sale executed upon it by its owner in its appropriate place and with its required conditions, so it is valid, as it would be if it were [sold] individually. Furthermore, the sale is a cause that entails a ruling upon two subjects, and its ruling is prevented in one of the two subjects due to the inability to accept it, so it remains valid in the other, just as if he had bequeathed something to a human and an animal. As for the two dirhams and the two sisters, neither one of them is more entitled to corruption than the other, and that is why it is corrupted in both, whereas here it is otherwise.

The third category is that the two sold items are known, but they are of a type where the price is not divisible by parts, such as a slave and a free person, or vinegar and wine, or [his own slave] and the slave of another, or a present slave and a runaway slave. In this case, the sale is void regarding what cannot be validly sold, and regarding the other, there are two narrations. Salih reported from his father regarding one who bought two slaves and found one of them to be free, that he may seek a return of its value from the price. Muhanna also reported from him regarding one who married a woman with two slaves as dowry, and found one of them to be free, that she is entitled to the value of [both] slaves, thus invalidating the dower for both of them entirely. For al-Shafi'i, there are two opinions, similar to the two narrations. Malik invalidated the contract for both, unless he sold his own property and the property of another, in which case it is valid regarding his own property and remains suspended regarding the property of another until permission is granted. A similar view is held by Abu Hanifa; for he said: If one of them is not valid to be sold by a textual proof or consensus, such as a free person or wine, the contract is not valid in either of them. But if it is not established by that, such as his own property and the property of another, it is valid regarding what he owns, because what is differed upon can be subject to the ruling of permission, through a judge's ruling validating the sale.