Explanation of the author's statement: "And ownership during the period of the two options belongs to the buyer, and he is entitled to its separated increase and its earnings."

The Shaykh : Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him, "And ownership during the period of the two options belongs to the buyer". Ownership of what? Ownership of the sold item. And the period of the two options refers to the option of the meeting place and the option of the condition for the buyer. Even if the period of the option has not yet elapsed, it belongs to the buyer; he has its benefit and he bears its loss. For this reason, if it perishes, even without negligence or fault, the liability for compensation is upon him. Upon whom? Upon the buyer, because it is his property. The evidence for this is two things: a textual proof and a rational proof. As for the textual proof, it is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . His statement that "its wealth belongs to the one who sold it" means from the time of the contract, because the sale is completed by mere offer and acceptance, unless the buyer conditions it, in which case it belongs to whom? To the buyer, who is the purchaser, because the origin of this wealth, which is the slave, is the property of the buyer by mere contract. This is the evidence, and you know that the indication in it is very subtle. For this reason, the scholars differed on this issue: does ownership during the period of the two options belong to the seller or to the buyer, or is there a detail in this? It was said that it belongs to the seller because the sale has not yet become binding, as it does not become binding until what? The period is completed before annulment. On this view, ownership belongs to the seller. It was also said that it is pending; if the sale is confirmed, it belongs to the buyer, and if it is annulled, it belongs to the seller. This view is strong from the perspective of reasoning, but it may be said that the hadith takes precedence over reasoning, which is that ownership is established by mere sale and purchase, meaning by mere offer and acceptance. This is the textual evidence. As for the rational evidence, it is that if this sold item perishes, it would be the liability of whom? It would be the liability of the buyer. And if it is his liability, how can we make him bear the loss without making him entitled to the benefit? The correct view is what the author, may Allah have mercy on him, held: that ownership belongs to the buyer from the time the acceptance is completed after the offer.
It remains for us to say to whom the increase belongs? The increase is divided into two categories: connected and separated. The separated increase belongs to the buyer, and the connected increase belongs to the seller. An example of this is if he bought a sheep for one hundred dirhams.