found in anything else. For that reason, the Lawgiver required manumission to extend to the co-owner’s share, despite the fact that this divests the co-owner of his property without his consent. Since manumission rests upon the rule that freedom prevails and extends, and that it takes effect in another person’s property, nothing else can be assimilated to it; no other kind of disposition may therefore be stipulated.

Ahmad’s legal principles and explicit statements, however, entail the permissibility of stipulating any form of disposal that serves a valid purpose, even if it precludes other forms of disposal. Ibn al-Qāsim said: “Ahmad was asked about a man who sells a female slave on condition that the buyer manumit her, and he permitted it. He was then told, ‘These people—meaning the followers of Abū Hanīfa—say that a sale subject to this condition is impermissible.’ He replied, ‘Why should it not be permissible? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) purchased Jābir’s camel and stipulated that Jābir retain the right to ride it to Medina, and Aisha purchased Barīra on condition that she be manumitted. Why, then, should this not be permissible?’ He added, ‘This is only one condition, whereas the prohibition concerns two conditions.’ He was asked, ‘Would it be permissible if he stipulated two conditions?’ He replied, ‘No, it would not.’”

Thus, Ahmad disputed those who prohibited it. He argued for its permissibility by citing the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) stipulation that Jābir retain the right to ride the camel, the hadith of Barīra, and the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only “forbade two conditions in a sale.” This is despite the fact that the hadith of Jābir reserves part of the sold property’s usufruct, thereby diminishing what an unrestricted contract would otherwise entail. A stipulation requiring manumission likewise prescribes a specific disposal of the property and thus necessarily restricts what an unrestricted contract would otherwise entail.

This shows that he made no distinction between a limitation on the purchaser’s power of disposal and a limitation on what he acquires. His appeal to the hadith concerning two conditions demonstrates the permissibility of this entire class of stipulations. Had manumission been an exception to analogical reasoning, he would neither have analogized it to another case nor have adduced in its support evidence encompassing both it and other cases.

Likewise, Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Hassān said: “I asked Abū Abd Allāh