Thus, the evidence for stipulating this condition is the Quran, the Sunnah, and sound reasoning.

The author then derived the following ruling from this condition:

“It is not valid to sell an absconding slave or a stray camel.” An absconding slave is one who has fled from his master, and a stray camel is one that has wandered away from its owner.

The sale of an absconding slave is invalid, whether his whereabouts are known or unknown, because he cannot be delivered. The seller is unable to hand him over to the buyer, even if his whereabouts are known and it is known that he fled to such-and-such a town, because finding him is difficult—especially when governmental authority is weak, security is unstable, and there is no effective control. It would therefore be exceedingly difficult for the buyer to obtain him (1).

The apparent meaning of his statement, “It is not valid to sell an absconding slave,” is that this applies whether or not the buyer is able to retrieve him.

It has also been said that if the buyer is able to retrieve him, then the sale is valid, because a ruling is established by the presence of its effective cause and ceases when that cause ceases. Thus, if this man knows where the absconding slave is and can take hold of him with ease, what prevents the sale from being valid? This is subject, however, to the condition that he does not deceive the seller—that is, he must not give him the impression that he is unable to find him. For if he informs the seller that he is able to retrieve him, the seller will raise the price—that is, his price—whereas if he does not know, he will lower the price. Therefore, he must inform him.

His statement, “nor a stray camel”: the stray one is a camel that has run away, and this is an example,