to religion.

As for those conditions which these scholars declared invalid, although the scriptural texts indicate their permissibility, whether in general or specifically, they said: “That has been abrogated.” Some of them said this concerning the conditions the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, agreed upon with the polytheists in the year of al-Hudaybiya. Alternatively, they said: “This is general or unrestricted, and must therefore be restricted to conditions that are in the Book of Allah.”

They also cited a hadith related in an account involving Abū Hanīfa, Ibn Abī Laylā and Sharīk:

“The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited a sale coupled with a condition.”

A number of authors of works on jurisprudence have mentioned it, but it is not found in any of the hadith collections. Ahmad and other scholars rejected it, stating that it is unknown and that authentic hadiths contradict it. The recognized jurists unanimously agree—with no dissent known to me from others—that stipulating a particular attribute in the item sold or the like is valid: for example, stipulating that a slave be able to write or practise a craft, or specifying the length of a piece of cloth, the area of a plot of land, and similar matters.

The second view is that contracts and conditions are, in principle, permissible and valid. None is forbidden or invalid except what the revealed law establishes as forbidden and invalid, whether through an explicit text or through analogy, according to those who accept it.

Most of Ahmad’s expressly transmitted principles follow this view. Mālik’s position is close to his, but Ahmad is more ready to uphold the validity