the statement of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and we know of no one among their generation who opposed them. Furthermore, it contains the speech of Allah the Exalted, so it is obligatory to protect it from being sold or treated with insignificance. As for purchasing, it is easier because it is a means of saving the Mus-haf and involves expending one's wealth for it, so it is permitted—just as those who do not permit the sale of Makkah’s estates or the taking of rent for them still permit purchasing those estates and renting their houses. The same applies to the land of al-Sawad and similar properties. Likewise, paying wages to a cupper (hajjam) is not disliked, despite the dislike associated with his earnings.

If a disbeliever purchases a Mus-haf, the sale is invalid. This is also the position of al-Shafi'i, while the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) permitted it and stated: He is to be compelled to sell it, because he has the capacity for purchasing, and the Mus-haf is a valid object for him. Our position is that since he is prevented from sustaining ownership over it, he is prevented from initiating it, like all other things whose sale is forbidden. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade traveling with the Qur'an to the land of the enemy, for fear that it might fall into their hands (30). Therefore, they must not be enabled to gain possession of it.

Section: It is not valid for a disbeliever to purchase a Muslim. This is the opinion of Malik in one of his two narrations, and of al-Shafi'i in one of his two statements. Abu Hanifa said: It is valid, and he is to be compelled to relinquish his ownership; because he can own a Muslim through inheritance, and his ownership remains over him if he becomes a Muslim while in his possession, so his purchasing him is valid, just like that of a Muslim. Our position is that since he is prevented from sustaining ownership over him, he is prevented from initiating it, like marriage. Furthermore, it is a contract that establishes ownership of a Muslim for a disbeliever, so it is invalid, like marriage or ownership through inheritance. Sustaining ownership is stronger than initiating ownership through action and choice, as evidenced by the fact that both are established for a person in a state of ihram regarding game, even though he is forbidden from initiating the act of killing it; thus, the validity of the stronger does not necessitate the validity of the weaker. Furthermore, we terminate the sustaining of ownership by forbidding it and compelling him to relinquish it.

Section: If a disbeliever appoints a Muslim as an agent to purchase a Muslim, the purchase is not valid, because ownership