And the explanation of it in this way is evidence that he intended residence (sukna), so it is similar to what would be the case if he said: "This is yours for you to reside in." And when it is possible that he intended the corpus for him, and it is possible that he intended residence, we do not remove his ownership based on mere possibility.

Section: If he makes an invalid gift or conducts an invalid sale, and then gifts that same object or sells it with a valid contract, while knowing of the invalidity of the first, the second contract is valid because he has exercised his own property while knowing it is his. If he believes the first contract was valid, there are two views regarding the validity of the second. One: It is valid, because his action concerned his own property and was completed according to its conditions, so it is valid, just as if he had known of the invalidity of the first. Second: It is not valid, because he performed an action he believes to be invalid, so it becomes invalid, similar to if he performed prayer while believing himself to be in a state of ritual impurity, only for it to be discovered that he was actually pure. The same applies if he exercised control over an object he believed belonged to his father, only for it to be discovered that his father had died and he had inherited it, or if he usurped an object and sold it believing it was usurped, then it turned out to be his own property; it follows the same two views. Al-Qadi said: The origin of these two views concerns one who engages in sexual relations with a woman by divorce believing her to be a stranger, then she turns out to be his wife, or one who declares the emancipation of a woman he believes to be free, only for her to turn out to be his slave girl; there are two narrations regarding the occurrence of the divorce and the emancipation. The Shafi'is have two views on these issues, as we have recounted. And Allah knows best.