have the ability to earn, so he stipulates that the buyer not emancipate him, lest he neglect him. He may also stipulate that he not emancipate him because, if he were emancipated, he would become free and act as he pleased, and his conduct might lead to immorality and depravity, or even to joining the disbelievers—if, for example, he had previously been a captive—or the like.

The point is that the stronger view is that, if he has a valid purpose, the condition is valid. At most, it prevents the buyer from exercising some of the rights of disposal that the Lawgiver has granted him; yet the buyer waives this right voluntarily, so the matter is up to him.

His statement, “or, if he emancipates him, then the wala’ belongs to him,” meaning the seller: this condition is invalid. That is, the seller sells the slave to someone and stipulates that, if the buyer emancipates him, the wala’ will belong to the seller. In this case, the contract is valid, but the condition is invalid.

The evidence for this is the hadith of Aishah in the account of Barirah. Her owners had entered into a contract of manumission with her, so she came to seek Aishah’s assistance. Aishah said, “If they wish, I will pay them the amount due, and your wala’ will belong to me.” Barirah went to her owners, but they said, “No; the wala’ belongs to us.” The Prophet said, “Take her and stipulate for them that the wala’ belongs to them.” So she did so. Then he stood and addressed the people, saying: “What is the matter with people who stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah? Any condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if it is stipulated a hundred times. The decree of Allah has greater right, and the condition of Allah is more binding. Wala’ belongs only to the one who emancipates.” (1) Thus, he approved the sale but did not approve the condition.

So what is wala’?