If someone were to say: Did not the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) say, “You and your property belong to your father”? (1) We would say: Certainly. But if the father wishes to sell his son’s property, he must first take ownership of it and then sell it. For before he takes ownership of it, it belongs to his son. Thus, we say: There is nothing to prevent you from taking ownership of this property and then selling it. But as for selling it while it remains the property of your son, without his permission, you have no right to do so.

His statement, “or if he purchases something with a specific asset belonging to that person without his permission, it is invalid”: An example is where a person gives you some dirhams and says, “Take these dirhams and deliver them to so-and-so.” You are then a trusted messenger. As you pass through the market carrying these dirhams, you purchase some merchandise with them—that is, you say to the seller, “I have bought this garment from you with these dirhams.” In this case, he has purchased it with the specific asset itself, so the sale is invalid. This is because purchasing with the specific asset is like selling that specific asset. Just as it is not permissible for me to take Zayd’s book and sell it, likewise it is not permissible for me to purchase something with his specific asset. In reality, purchasing with the specific asset amounts to selling that specific asset. Accordingly, it is invalid.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this is invalid even if it serves an interest; and it also appears from his words that it remains invalid even if the owner ratifies it, because the condition is absent.

The correct view is that if the owner ratifies it, the sale is valid, and the evidence for this is