Al-Shāfiʿī said:
“If a mufāwadah partnership is not invalid, then I know of nothing that is invalid.”

Thus, their positions in this area overlap, with each permitting things the other prohibits. However, al-Shāfiʿī’s principles entail more prohibitions in this regard than those of Abū Hanīfah.

As for Mālik, his school’s position is the best in this matter. He permits the sale of these things and everything for which there is a need, or whose contractual uncertainty is slight enough to be tolerated in contracts. He even permits selling cucumber crops as a whole and selling produce concealed in the ground, such as carrots, radishes and the like.

Ahmad’s position is close to his in this respect, for he permits these things. According to his explicitly recorded position, he also permits the bridal due to be a slave without further specification, or an unspecified slave from among the husband’s slaves, and similar things whose uncertainty is no greater than that involved in the customary bridal due for a woman of comparable standing. Some of his followers, however, such as Abū al-Khattāb, permit an unspecified choice from a defined group but not an unrestricted designation. Others, such as Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, agree with al-Shāfiʿī, permitting as a bridal due, compensation for a wife’s release from marriage, and similar payments only what they permit as the subject of a sale.

According to his explicitly recorded position, Ahmad permits greater latitude in compensation for a wife’s release from marriage, even allowing what may validly be bequeathed, although it would not be permissible as a bridal due. This accords with Mālik’s position, though there are differences of opinion within Ahmad’s school that this is not the place to discuss. Nevertheless, his explicitly recorded position is that he does not permit the sale of produce concealed in the ground, such as carrots and the like, unless it has been uprooted.

He said: