that is disputed or novel can benefit from this rule. We shall therefore mention, among its applications, some broadly stated rules of law.

One such rule is what we have already stated: anyone who transfers an asset out of his ownership through an exchange, such as a sale or a compensatory divorce, or gratuitously, such as through an endowment or manumission, may reserve some of its benefits for himself. If the transaction is one in which [uncertainty] is impermissible, such as a sale, the reserved benefit must be specified. Al-Bukhārī, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī, and al-Nasā’ī narrated that Jābir said: “I sold it—meaning my camel—to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), stipulating that I retain the right to ride it home to my family.” If, however, it is not a transaction of that kind, as with manumission or an endowment, he may reserve the slave’s services for as long as his master or a specified person remains alive, and he may reserve the proceeds of the endowment for as long as its founder remains alive.

Another such rule is that if the seller stipulates that the purchaser must manumit the slave, the stipulation is valid according to the apparent view of the schools of al-Shāfiī, Ahmad, and others, based on the hadith of Barīra, although a contrary view is also reported from both of them.

Does manumission then become obligatory for the purchaser, just as it becomes obligatory through a vow, such that the judge effects it if he refuses? Or is the seller entitled to rescind the sale if the purchaser refuses to manumit the slave, just as he is entitled to rescind it when the stipulated quality of the item sold is absent? There are two views on this question in both schools. Al-Shāfiī and a group of Ahmad’s followers regard this as an exception to analogical reasoning, because it prevents the purchaser from disposing of his property in any way other than by manumitting the slave. This is inconsistent with what the contract entails, for it entails ownership that permits its holder unrestricted disposal.

They argued that the sunnah permitted this only because the Lawgiver has a particular concern for manumission that is not