that he said: "I do not find for you anything broader than what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made for Habban; he granted him an option of three days; if he is pleased, he takes it, and if he is displeased, he leaves it." Also, because the option contradicts the implication of the sale, as it prevents ownership, bindingness, and the unrestricted exercise of disposal. It is only permitted due to the place of necessity, so a small amount of it is permitted, and the final limit of what is considered small is three days. Allah the Almighty said: {So say, "Enjoy yourselves in your homes for three days"} (5) after His saying: {the punishment of a near time will take you} (6). Our view is that it is a right that depends on the condition, so in its estimation, one refers to the one who stipulated it, like the deferred term [ajal], or we may say: it is a duration appended to the contract, so it is subject to the estimation of the contracting parties, like the deferred term. What was narrated from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, is not established for us, and the opposite has been narrated from Anas. Malik’s estimation based on need is not valid; for it is not possible to link a ruling to need due to its hidden nature and variability. Instead, it should be linked to its indicative sign [mazinna], which is the act of stepping forward [to purchase], for it is suitable to be a parameter, and the ruling is linked to it in [matters] less than three days, in salam, and in deferred terms. As for the statement of the others that it contradicts the implication of the sale: it is invalid, for the implication of the sale is the transfer of ownership, and the option does not contradict it. Even if we were to concede that, whenever the principle is departed from due to a meaning in one instance, it is obligatory to extend the ruling because that meaning extends [to others].

Section: It is permitted to stipulate the option for each of the two contracting parties, and it is permitted for one of them without the other, and it is permitted for them to stipulate for one of them a period and for the other a different one; because that is their right, and it was only permitted out of consideration for them, so however they mutually agree upon it, it is permitted. If he buys two items and stipulates the option in one of them specifically without the other, it is valid; because the most that can be said is that he combined a sold item that has an option with a sold item that has no option, and that is permitted by analogy to buying that which has a right of pre-emption [shuf'a] and that which has no right of pre-emption, for it is valid, and each of them becomes a sold item according to its share of the price. If he annuls the sale of that which has the option, he recovers its share of the price, just as if he found one of them to be defective and returned it. If he stipulates the option in one of them without specifying which, or stipulates the option for one of the contracting parties without specifying which, it is not valid; because it is unknown, thus it resembles the case where one buys one of two slaves without specifying which. Also, it leads to conflict, and perhaps each of the contracting parties would seek the opposite of what the other seeks, and one might claim, "I am the one entitled to the option," or the one who has the option might demand the return of one of the sold items, and the other says, "This is not what I stipulated the option for you in." It is also possible that the stipulation of an option in one of the sold items specifically is not valid, just as selling it for its share of the price is not valid. This entire section is the school of al-Shafi'i.