consensus is not in the Book of Allah. This differs from what is established in the Sunnah or by consensus, for that is in the Book of Allah through its instruction to follow the Sunnah and consensus. Those who accept analogical reasoning—and they are the majority—say: If a condition’s validity is established by analogy whose authority is supported by the Sunnah or by consensus supported by the Book of Allah, then it is in the Book of Allah.

Their second argument is that they draw an analogy between all conditions that conflict with what a contract entails and the stipulation concerning the right of patronage. The underlying reason is that this stipulation conflicts with what the contract entails. Contracts entail their effects by virtue of the revealed law, so altering those effects is considered an alteration of what the revealed law requires, just like altering acts of worship. This is the crux of the principle: contracts have been prescribed in a particular form, so stipulating something contrary to what they entail alters what has been prescribed.

For this reason, Abū Hanīfa, Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī—in one of his two opinions—do not permit conditions in acts of worship that conflict with what those acts entail. Thus, they do not permit a pilgrim in the state of consecration to stipulate that he may leave that state on account of an excuse. In this they follow ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar, who rejected making such a stipulation during Hajj and would say, “Is the Sunnah of your Prophet not sufficient for you?”

They also supported this principle with the words of Allah Most High:

“Today I have perfected your religion for you.”

And His words:

“And whoever transgresses the limits set by Allah—it is they who are the wrongdoers.”

They said: Conditions and contracts that have not been prescribed transgress the limits set by Allah and constitute an addition