The correct view is that this is permissible provided it does not entail anything prohibited by the Sacred Law, for there may be a need for it. A person may say, “I do not wish to sell you my house until I am assured that I will be living in another house.” So the other says, “I have sold you the house for one hundred thousand, on condition that you lease me your house for ten thousand—or for one thousand.” There is nothing objectionable in this.

As for the Prophet’s ﷺ statement, “Nor two conditions in a sale,” its wording is unrestricted and is therefore understood in light of what restricts it: namely, the two conditions that entail falling into something prohibited by the Sacred Law.

However, if this is done without making one contract conditional upon the other—such as combining a sale with a manumission contract, a sale with a currency exchange, a sale with a lease, or a sale with a dowry—then the contract is valid.

His statement, “between a sale and a manumission contract,” means that he says to his slave, “I have sold you this car and entered into a manumission contract with you for ten thousand.” The price is one, and the transaction is one. The author says that the sale is invalid in this case, because he has sold his property to his own property. This slave with whom he has entered into a manumission contract has not left his ownership and will not do so until he pays in full. Thus, if he sells his property to his own property, the sale is invalid. There is a difference of opinion on this issue, but this is the position of the madhhab. The reasoning is that one of the conditions of a sale is that it be made to someone who possesses full ownership, whereas this slave does not possess full ownership, for he still remains