to him. If he stipulates it for the owner, it is valid; because he is the owner and the interest belongs to him. If he stipulates it for a third party, it is not valid; because he does not have the right to appoint someone else as an agent. It is possible, however, that it is permissible, based on the narration which states that the agent may appoint an agent.

Section: If he says, "I sold to you on the condition that I consult so-and-so," and he limits that to a known time, it is a valid option, and he has the right to annulment before he consults him; because we have treated this as a metonymy for the option, and this is the opinion of some of the followers of al-Shafi'i. If he does not restrict it to a known duration, it is an unknown option, and its ruling is the same as the ruling for that.

Section: If he stipulates the option for a day or known hours, the beginning of the option duration is considered to be from the time of the contract according to one of the two views. The other view is that it is from the time of separation; because the option is established in the session (majlis) by legal ruling, so there is no need to establish it by stipulation. Also, the state of the session is like the state of the contract, as both parties have the right to increase or decrease in it, so it is like the state of the contract in the beginning of the option duration after its expiration. The first view is more correct; because it is a duration appended to the contract, so its beginning is from it, like a deferred payment (ajal). Furthermore, the stipulation is the cause for the establishment of the option, so its ruling must follow it immediately, like ownership in a sale. Moreover, if we made its beginning from the time of separation, it would lead to its being unknown; because we do not know when they will separate, so we would not know when its beginning is, nor when its ending is. The establishment of a ruling is not prevented by two causes, like the prohibition of intercourse through fasting, ihram, and zihar. Based on this, if they stipulate its beginning from the time of separation, it is not valid for that reason, except according to the narration which says that an unknown option is valid. If we say: its beginning is from the time of separation, then they stipulate its establishment from the time of the contract, it is valid; because its beginning and ending are known. It is possible that it is not valid; because the option in the session suffices in place of another option, thus it prevents its establishment, but the first view is preferable. The school of al-Shafi'i regarding this entire section is as we have mentioned.