from the seller’s property. Nevertheless, if it perished while in his possession, he would be liable for it. Moreover, the purchaser is not prohibited from every form of disposal; the Sunnah addresses sale specifically. If he emancipated the slave he had purchased before taking possession, the emancipation would be valid by consensus. Scholars have differed concerning gifts and other forms of disposal. They have also differed concerning the income from food sold before the prohibition against taking possession of it, for that is what is established in the texts and agreed upon by the scholars. They have likewise differed over the subsidiary rulings derived from this principle.

The fundamental principles of Islamic law support this approach. Not everything for which a person bears liability is something he may dispose of, as with usurped property and property borrowed for use. Nor does everyone entitled to dispose of something necessarily bear liability for it. An owner, for example, may dispose of his property that has been usurped or lent for use: he may sell the usurped property to the usurper or to someone able to recover it from him, even though liability rests with the usurper.

Likewise, the principle that liability accompanies entitlement to revenue applies only where ownership and possession are united in the same person. When ownership belongs to one person and possession to another, the revenue may belong to the owner while liability rests with the person holding the property. Furthermore, selling a debt to the debtor is permissible according to the apparent position of the schools of Ahmad and al-Shāfi‘ī; Abū Hanīfah holds the same view. Mālik permits selling it to someone other than the debtor, and this is also one position reported from Ahmad, even though the owner does not bear liability for the debt.

Moreover, once the seller has enabled the purchaser to take possession, he has fulfilled his obligation;