validly, then performs that act, he becomes free, and the sale is annulled. Ibn Abi Layla said: If he swears by divorce, "I will not speak to so-and-so," then divorces her with a final divorce, and then speaks to her, he has broken his oath. The general body of scholars holds the opposite of this view, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "There is no divorce, no emancipation, and no sale regarding that which the son of Adam does not possess." And because he has no ownership, his divorce and emancipation do not take effect, just as if he had no prior wealth.

Section: If he says to his slave, "If I do not strike you ten lashes, you are free," and he did not intend a specific time, he does not become free until he dies [and the striking does not occur]. If he sells him before that, the sale is valid and is not rescinded, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. Malik said: He does not have the right to sell him, and if he does sell him, the sale is rescinded. Our view is that he sold him before the condition was met, so it is valid and is not rescinded, just as if he had said, "If I enter the house, you are free," and sold him before entering it.

Section: If he says to his slave, "If I enter the house, you are free," and he sells him, then buys him back, and enters the house, he becomes free. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i said: There are two opinions on this; one of them is that he does not become free, because his ownership over him is subsequent to the contracting of the condition, so emancipation does not take effect, just as if he had contracted the condition while his ownership was non-existent. Our view is that he made the condition while in possession, and the condition was fulfilled while in possession, so he must break his oath, just as if his ownership had not ceased. This differs from the case where he makes the condition during the time his ownership has ceased, because if he had made the emancipation immediate, it would not have taken effect, so if he makes it conditional, it is even less likely to take effect, unlike our current issue. However, if he enters the house after selling him, then buys him back and enters the house, the stated position from Ahmad is that he does not become free. Another narration is mentioned from him that he does become free. It was also narrated from him regarding divorce that it does take effect, because the suspension and the condition were both found while in his possession, so it resembles the case where no entry into the house had intervened. The logic behind the first view is that emancipation is suspended upon a condition that does not require repetition; so once it is found once, the oath is resolved. The entry occurred while in the possession of another, so the oath was resolved, and the emancipation did not take effect