“Thus, if he purchases her, receives her as a gift, or inherits her, his right hand possesses her. She therefore becomes lawful to him, and this can only occur if her husband’s marital rights cease.”

Some jurists cited the hadith of Barīrah in support of their position. Ahmad, however, did not accept this argument, because Ibn ‘Abbās narrated it yet held a contrary view. This was—and Allah knows best—for the reason I have mentioned: ‘Ā’ishah did not acquire unrestricted ownership of Barīrah.

Nevertheless, all the jurists and the majority of the Companions hold that when ownership of a married slave woman is transferred—through sale, gift, inheritance, or the like—and her owner’s title is legally protected, her husband’s marital rights do not cease. The purchaser or other recipient acquires ownership of her, except for the right to marital intimacy.

Among their arguments is that even the seller himself could not extinguish the husband’s marital rights if he wished to do so. The purchaser, whose position is subordinate to that of the seller, cannot have greater authority than he does, nor can the purchaser’s ownership be more complete than the seller’s. The husband’s rights are legally protected and may not be seized. The case of a woman taken captive in war is different and involves a disagreement that need not be discussed here, since the lives and property of those at war with the Muslims may lawfully be taken; the same applies to the marital rights they possess.

Likewise, the hadith-oriented jurists and the scholars of the Hijaz agree that when someone sells trees whose fruit has already appeared—such as date palms that have been pollinated—the fruit belongs to the seller, who is entitled to leave it on the trees until it has fully ripened. The seller has thus reserved the use of the trees until the fruit has fully ripened.