and each of them found a defect in what he had purchased. Their statement that it is 'deficient' is incorrect; the permissibility of its rescission does not necessitate its deficiency, nor does it prevent the transfer of ownership, just like the sale of a defective item. The inability to dispose of it exists only for the sake of another person's right, so it does not prevent the establishment of ownership, as is the case with pledged goods or an item sold before taking possession. Their argument that 'it leaves the seller's ownership but does not enter the buyer's ownership' is invalid, because this would lead to the existence of property that has no owner, which is impossible. It would also lead to the establishment of ownership for the seller without the buyer receiving its consideration, or the transfer of his ownership of the sold item without it being established in its consideration, and the nature of the contract as an exchange precludes this. The statement of the followers of al-Shafi'i that ownership is suspended—if they execute the sale, we determine it was transferred, otherwise not—is also incorrect. For the transfer of ownership is based only on its transferring cause, which is the sale, and this does not differ based on its execution or rescission. Executing it is neither a requirement nor a cause for it; for if it were so, ownership would not be established prior to it. And rescission is not a barrier, for a barrier cannot precede the thing it prevents, just as a legal ruling does not precede its cause or its condition. Furthermore, a sale with an option is a cause that establishes ownership immediately following it in cases where it is not rescinded, so it must be established even if it is rescinded, like the sale of a defective item. This is evident, God willing.

Section: Whatever results from the yields of the sold item and its separate growth during the option period belongs to the buyer, whether they execute the contract or rescind it. Ahmad said regarding someone who bought a slave, and property was gifted to him before separation, then the seller chose the slave: the property belongs to the buyer. Al-Shafi'i said: If they execute the contract, and we say that ownership belongs to the buyer or is suspended, then the separate growth belongs to him; if we say that ownership belongs to the seller, then the growth belongs to him. If they rescind the contract, and we say that ownership belongs to the seller or is suspended, the growth belongs to him; otherwise, it belongs to the buyer. Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The yield is in return for the liability."