If we follow the other narration, which holds that ownership did not transfer to the buyer, the seller's emancipation takes effect, not the buyer's. If both the seller and the buyer emancipate [the slave], and the buyer's emancipation precedes the seller's, the ruling follows what we have already mentioned. If the seller's emancipation precedes it, it is appropriate that neither's emancipation takes effect; because the seller's emancipation does not take effect as he emancipated what he does not own, yet by his emancipation, the rescission of the sale and the retrieval of the slave occurred, so the buyer's emancipation does not take effect. Whenever the seller repeats the emancipation a second time, it takes effect; because the slave has returned to him, so it resembles the case where he retrieved him by explicit statement. If he buys someone who becomes free upon his ownership, it follows the same ruling as his emancipation by explicit statement, the ruling for which we have already mentioned. If he sells a slave for a slave girl with a condition of option and emancipates both, the emancipation of the slave girl takes effect, not the slave. If he emancipates one of them and then emancipates the other, you must examine the case: if he emancipates the slave girl first, her emancipation takes effect, his option is voided, and the slave's emancipation does not take effect. If he emancipates the slave first, the sale is rescinded, the slave returns to him, his emancipation [of the slave] does not take effect, and the emancipation of the slave girl does not take effect; because she has left his ownership through the rescission and returned to her original seller.

Section: If one says to his slave, "If I sell you, you are free," then he sells him, he becomes free. Ahmad has explicitly stated this, and it is the view of al-Hasan, Ibn Abi Layla, Malik, and al-Shafi'i. This applies whether they stipulated the option or did not. Abu Hanifa and al-Thawri said: He does not become free; because once the sale is concluded, his ownership is terminated, so his act of emancipation cannot take effect. We hold that the moment of the transfer of ownership is the moment of freedom; because the sale is the cause for transferring ownership and a condition for freedom. Therefore, freedom must be given precedence, just as if one said to his slave, "When I die, you are free," and because he conditioned his freedom upon his own act of selling. The act issuing from him in the sale is merely the offer. Thus, whenever he says to the buyer, "I have sold you," the condition for freedom has been met, so he becomes free before the buyer's acceptance. The Qadi reasoned that the option is established in every sale, so his disposition regarding it is not severed. According to this, if they had both chosen to finalize the sale and then he sold him, he would not become free, but this reasoning is not valid according to our school, for we have mentioned that if the seller emancipates during the option period, his emancipation does not take effect.

Section: It is not permissible for the buyer to have intercourse with the slave girl during the option period if the option belongs to both or to the seller alone; because the seller's right is attached to her, so intercourse is not permitted for him, just like a pawned item, and we do not know of any disagreement regarding this.