the resulting double liability.

Mālik, Ahmad—according to the well-known position reported from him—and others, however, say that when the buyer is able to take possession of an item specifically identified in the contract—such as a slave, a horse, or the like—the risk passes to the buyer. They make further distinctions here and disagree concerning certain specifically identified items. Their evidence is the report transmitted by Ahmad and others from al-Zuhrī, from Sālim, from Ibn ʿUmar, who said:

“The established Sunnah is that whatever is alive and intact when the bargain is concluded is at the buyer’s risk.”

Thus, Ahmad’s apparent position is that the risk passes to the buyer when taking possession becomes possible, not when possession actually takes place. His apparent position is therefore that permission to dispose of the goods neither necessarily accompanies liability nor depends upon it. Rather, disposal may be permissible while the risk remains with the seller, as he mentioned concerning fruit and the benefits provided under a lease. Conversely, the buyer may bear the risk while disposal remains impermissible, as with a specified heap of grain.

Al-Khiraqī mentioned both cases in his Mukhtasar, saying:

“If someone purchases the fruit without the trees, and it is destroyed by a natural calamity, he may recover its price from the seller.”

The scholars of the school said:

“Permission to dispose of something does not necessarily mean that possession has been completed, as demonstrated by the benefits provided under a lease.”

Al-Khiraqī then said:

“If a sale concerns goods measured by volume, weight, or number, and they perish before possession is taken, the loss falls upon the seller.”

According to the majority of the school’s scholars, this refers to whatever is sold by volume, weight, or number, whether specifically identified or not.

Al-Khiraqī then said:

“Whoever purchases something requiring possession may not resell it