with his property, his marriage is annulled, because he has acquired her and she has become lawful for him through his right of possession (milk al-yamin). If he acquires a part of her, his marriage is annulled, and she does not become lawful for him, because he does not own her entirely. If he buys her with specific property shared between him and his master without the master's permission, and we hold the view that a transaction cannot be divided, the sale is not valid, and the marriage remains as it was. If we hold the view that it can be divided, it is valid regarding the portion belonging to his share, and the marriage is annulled because he has acquired a part of her.

Section: If a free woman buys her husband, or acquires him through a gift or otherwise, the marriage is annulled, because the ownership of marriage and the ownership of the right of possession (milk al-yamin) are incompatible, due to the impossibility of a person being the owner of their own owner. Furthermore, the wife might say: "Support me because I am your wife, and I will travel with you because you are my slave," while he says: "Support me because I am your slave, and I will travel with you because you are my wife." This creates a contradiction; therefore, the stronger of the two prevails, which is the right of possession, and the marriage is annulled as it is the weaker [status]. She owes the dowry to his master if the annulment occurs after consummation, and he owes her the price [of his purchase]. If both are debts of the same category, they offset and cancel each other if they are equal; if they are unequal, the lesser amount is canceled by its equivalent, and the remainder persists. If they are of different categories, they do not cancel each other, and each of them is obligated to surrender what they owe to the other. Al-Shafi'i stated in one of his two opinions: Her dowry is annulled, because it is a debt upon the liability of the slave, and once she owns him, it is not permissible for a debt to persist for her against her slave, just as if he had destroyed her property. This is based on his view that the dowry attaches to the liability of the slave, whereas we have clarified that it attaches to the liability of his master; thus, the slave's ownership does not affect its annulment. The Qadi mentioned a point regarding this, that it is annulled because the establishment of the debt on the liability of the master is a consequence of its establishment on the liability of the slave; therefore, if it is dropped from the slave's liability, it drops from the master's liability as a consequence, like the debt on a guarantor when it is dropped from the liability of the person guaranteed. This is not recognized in the school [of Hanbali], nor is it held that it attaches to both liabilities simultaneously,