because it includes dirhams, while one of the two countervalues is of a different type. Is this valid or not? The answer is that it requires further detail. The author says:

“If his purpose is the property, knowledge of it and all the other conditions of sale are required; otherwise, they are not.”

That is, if his purpose is the property, he must know the property and fulfil all the other conditions of sale—that is, all eight conditions of sale. It must also be free of ribā; otherwise, it is not valid.

How, then, do we know whether his purpose is the property or the slave? This is known through contextual indications. If the man—that is, the buyer—needs a servant and is looking for a slave whom he can own and employ as his servant, but stipulates that the slave’s property be included with him because he does not wish to disrupt the slave’s former management of his affairs—for if the original seller were to take the property, the slave might be adversely affected—then he stipulates that the slave’s property accompany him for the slave’s comfort. In this case, knowledge of the property is not required, nor is it required that there be no ribā between it and its countervalue; indeed, none of these conditions is required.

Thus, if the buyer is asked, “You stipulated that his property be included with him. Do you know what his property is?” and he replies, “No, I do not know it. But the property is not what concerns me; what concerns me is the slave,” we say: It does not matter that you are unaware of the property, because your purpose is the slave.

But if the buyer says, “My purpose is the property, for I saw this slave conducting trade in a business establishment, and he was successful; and the establishment contains various kinds of merchandise,” then we say: “Actions are only by intentions.” Since your purpose is the property, you must separate out all the property, even a box of matches, and this property must not be subject to