There is a disagreement regarding this. If he has intercourse with her, he does not incur a penalty [hadd] because the penalty is warded off by the semblance of ownership, and it is even more applicable when [the status] is realized. Furthermore, there is no dower [mahr] due for her, because she is his slave. If she becomes pregnant by him, the child is free and his lineage is attributed to him because it is from his own slave, and he is not liable for the child's value, and she becomes an Umm Walad [mother of his child] for him. If the seller rescinds the sale, he may reclaim her value because the rescission of the sale regarding her has become impossible; however, he cannot reclaim the value of her child, because the child came into existence while under the buyer's ownership. If we hold that ownership does not transfer to the buyer, he also does not incur a penalty, because he has a semblance of ownership regarding her due to the existence of the cause for the transfer of ownership to him and the disagreement among the scholars regarding the establishment of ownership for him, and the penalty is warded off by [legal] semblances. In this case, the dower is due from him, and the ruling on the value of the child is the same as the ruling on the child's growth. If he knew of the prohibition and that his ownership was not established, the child is a slave. As for the seller, it is not permissible for him to have intercourse before rescinding the sale. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said: It is permissible for him to have intercourse with her because the sale is rescinded by his act of intercourse. Thus, if the ownership had transferred, she returns to him, and if it had not transferred, the buyer's right to her is severed, so he is having intercourse with his own slave over whom no one else has a right. We hold that ownership transferred away from him, so it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her, according to the words of Allah Almighty: "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors" (Quran 23:6-7), and because the commencement of the intercourse takes place while she is not in his ownership, it is therefore forbidden. If the sale were rescinded before he had intercourse, she would not be permissible for him until he has cleared her [via istibra'], and he would not be liable for any penalty. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i. Some of our companions said: If he knew of the prohibition and that his ownership had ceased, and that it is not rescinded by intercourse, then he is subject to the penalty. It is mentioned that Ahmad stated this, because his act of intercourse did not coincide with ownership or a semblance of ownership. We hold that his ownership is established by the inception of his intercourse, and thus the completion of the intercourse occurs within his own ownership, alongside the disagreement of the scholars regarding his status of ownership and the permissibility of intercourse for him, and the penalty is not due when one of these semblances exists; how much more so when they are combined! Moreover, it is possible that the rescission occurs by touching before the actual intercourse, so the ownership would have returned to him before he had intercourse. For this reason, Ahmad said regarding the buyer that she has become binding upon him the moment he laid his hand upon her, in cases where he combed her, dyed her, or groomed her; so by laying his hand upon her for the purpose of intercourse and touching her private part with his, it is more fitting. According to this, his child from her is free, his lineage is attributed to him, he is not liable for the child's value, he does not owe a dower, and the slave becomes an Umm Walad for him. Our companions said: If he knew of the prohibition, the child is a slave, and his lineage is not attributed to him. If he did not know, the lineage is attributed to him, the child is free, he is liable for the child's value on the day of birth, he owes a dower, and the slave does not become an Umm Walad for him, because he had intercourse with her while she was not in his ownership.

Section: There is no harm in paying the price and taking possession of the sold item during the option period. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, while Malik disapproved of it. He said: Because it is in the meaning of a sale and a loan; if he pays him the price and then they rescind the sale, it becomes as if he had loaned it to him. We hold that this is one of the rulings of the sale, so it is permitted during the option period, like leasing. What he mentioned is not correct because we [do not permit] him to dispose of it.

Section: Al-Khiraqi's statement: "Or he dies." The manifest meaning is that he referred to the slave, returning the pronoun to him, which is in the same meaning as his statement "or the merchandise was destroyed." It is possible that he returned the pronoun to the buyer and meant that if the buyer dies, the option is voided; because the death of the slave has already been covered by his statement "or the merchandise was destroyed." The ruling on the death of the seller and the buyer is the same. The established school [madhhab] is that the option of the one who dies from among them is voided upon his death, and the option of the other remains as it was, unless the deceased had demanded the rescission before his death, in which case it belongs to his heirs. This is the view of al-Thawri and Abu Hanifa. It is also deduced that the option is not voided and transfers to his heirs, because it is a financial right, so it transfers to the heir like a deferred payment or the option to return for a defect. Furthermore, it is a right to rescind the sale, so it transfers to the heir like the [option of] return for a defect.