Examples include the following:

As we have mentioned, anyone who transfers an asset out of his ownership, whether in exchange for compensation—as in a sale or khulʿ (divorce in return for compensation)—or gratuitously—as in an endowment or manumission—may reserve some of its benefits. If the transaction does not permit uncertainty, as in a sale, the reserved benefit must be clearly defined. Al-Bukhārī, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasāʾī narrated that Jābir said:

“I sold it—meaning his camel—to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on condition that I could ride it back to my family.”

If the transaction is not of this kind, as in manumission or an endowment, he may reserve the slave’s service for the lifetime of his master or of a named person, and may reserve the endowment’s income for the founder’s lifetime.

Another example is when a seller stipulates that the purchaser must free the slave. This condition is valid according to the apparent position of the schools of al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad and others, on the basis of the hadith of Barīrah, although a contrary opinion is also reported from both of them. Does freeing the slave then become binding upon the purchaser, just as it becomes binding through a vow, so that the judge carries it out if the purchaser refuses? Or does the seller acquire the right to rescind the sale if the purchaser refuses to free him, just as he may rescind it when the item sold lacks a stipulated attribute? There are two views within their respective schools.

Al-Shāfiʿī and a group of Ahmad’s followers consider this a departure from analogy, because it prevents the purchaser from disposing of his property in any way other than manumission. This runs contrary to what the contract entails, namely ownership that gives its holder unrestricted power of disposal.