And his reliance on the hadith concerning two conditions shows that this entire category of stipulations is permissible. Had emancipation been an exception to analogical reasoning, he would not have established its permissibility by analogy with other matters, nor supported it with evidence encompassing both emancipation and other matters.

Likewise, Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Hassān said:

“I asked Abū Abdullāh about someone who purchased a slave and stipulated, ‘He is free after my death.’ He replied, ‘This slave is designated for emancipation upon his owner’s death.’”

He thus permitted a condition stipulating emancipation upon death. The followers of al-Shāfi‘ī disagreed over such a condition; al-Rāfi‘ī considered the view that it is invalid to be correct.

He likewise permitted a condition stipulating that a slave woman be taken as a concubine. Abū Tālib said:

“I asked Ahmad about a man who purchased a slave woman on condition that he take her as a concubine—a valuable slave woman whose owners wished him to take her as a concubine rather than use her for service. He replied, ‘There is nothing wrong with it.’”

Since the seller of the slave woman had a legitimate purpose in stipulating concubinage, he permitted it. He likewise permitted the seller of a slave woman or similar property to stipulate that the purchaser not sell her to anyone other than the seller, and that, should the purchaser wish to sell her, the seller would take her back at the original price, as they reported from ‘Umar, Ibn Mas‘ūd and his wife Zaynab.

The underlying principle is this: with respect to the property sold, whose constituent parts and benefits are included in an unqualified contract, the two parties may stipulate an addition to what that contract includes. Thus the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever sells date palms that have been pollinated, their fruit belongs to the seller, unless the purchaser stipulates otherwise.”