They said:

“The Sunnah permitted this only because the Lawgiver has a special concern for emancipation unmatched in other matters. For this reason, He required emancipation to extend to a co-owner’s share, even though this deprives the co-owner of his property without his consent. Since emancipation rests on giving freedom precedence, extending it to other shares, and making it effective against another person’s property, no other disposition can be treated analogously to it. Thus, no other disposition may be stipulated.”

Ahmad’s principles and explicit statements, however, entail that any disposition serving a legitimate purpose may be stipulated, even if this precludes other dispositions.

Ibn al-Qāsim reported that Ahmad was asked about a man selling a slave woman on condition that the purchaser free her, and he permitted it. He was then told:

“But these people—meaning the followers of Abū Hanīfah—say that a sale with this condition is not permissible.”

He replied:

“Why should it not be permissible? The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, purchased Jābir’s camel, and Jābir stipulated that he could ride it to Medina. Ā’ishah purchased Barīrah on condition that she free her. Why, then, should this not be permissible?”

He added: “This is only one condition. The prohibition concerns only two conditions.”

He was asked: “If he stipulates two conditions, is that permissible?”

He replied: “It is not permissible.”

Thus, he disputed the position of those who prohibited it, arguing for its permissibility on the basis of the Prophet’s stipulation, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that Jābir retain the right to ride the camel, the hadith of Barīrah, and the fact that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prohibited only two conditions in a sale.

Yet Jābir’s hadith involves reserving some of the benefit of the property sold, thereby reducing the rights conferred by an unqualified contract. Stipulating emancipation, meanwhile, requires an intended disposition that necessarily reduces the rights conferred by an unqualified contract. It is therefore clear that Ahmad makes no distinction between a restriction affecting the right of disposal and one affecting the property owned.