or take another woman alongside her, and similar stipulations serving their interests.

They therefore say: Every stipulation contrary to what a contract entails is invalid, unless it serves the interests of the contracting parties. Ahmad’s explicit statements indicate that he permitted more contractual stipulations than al-Shāfiʿī did. Thus, they may agree with al-Shāfiʿī on the general principle while allowing more exceptions on the basis of countervailing evidence, just as al-Shāfiʿī may agree with Abū Hanīfa on the general principle while allowing more exceptions on the same basis. These three groups differ from the literalists and allow greater latitude in stipulations because they accept analogical reasoning, underlying rationales, and reports from the Companions, and because they discern meanings in the scriptural texts that the literalists do not.

Their principal evidence is the well-known account of Barīrah, recorded by al-Bukhārī and Muslim in their Sahīh collections, from ʿĀʾisha, may Allah be pleased with her, who said:

“Barīrah came to me and said, ‘I have contracted with my owners to purchase my freedom for nine ounces of silver, payable at one ounce each year, so help me.’

I said, ‘If your owners are willing for me to pay them the sum, with the right of patronage over you belonging to me, I will do so.’ Barīrah went to her owners and told them, but they refused. She returned from them while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was sitting there, and said, ‘I presented that to them, but they refused unless the right of patronage remained theirs.’

ʿĀʾisha informed the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he said, ‘Take her and stipulate that the right of patronage shall be theirs, for the right of patronage belongs only to the one who emancipates.’