Section: Conditions in Mudaraba are divided into two categories: valid and invalid. The valid ones are like stipulating that the agent shall not travel with the wealth, or that he shall travel with it, or that he shall not trade except in a specific city or a specific type [of goods], or that he shall not purchase except from a specific person. All of this is valid, whether the type is something that is commonly found or not, or whether the person is someone from whom goods are frequently or rarely obtained. This is the view of Abu Hanifa. Malik and al-Shafi'i said: If it is stipulated that he shall not purchase except from a specific person, or a specific commodity, or that which is not commonly found—such as red ruby and piebald horses—it is not valid, because it prevents the purpose of the Mudaraba, which is the turnover of capital and seeking profit. Thus it is invalid, just as if it were stipulated that he shall not sell and purchase except from so-and-so, or that he shall not sell except for the same price for which he purchased. Our view is that it is a specific Mudaraba that does not prevent profit entirely, so it is valid, just as if it were stipulated that he shall not trade except in a type that is commonly found; and because it is a contract whose specification by a type is valid, its specification by a specific person or a specific commodity is also valid, like agency (wakala). Their claim that it prevents the purpose [of the contract] is rejected; it merely reduces it, and reducing it does not prevent validity, just like specifying it by type. It differs from when it is stipulated that he shall not sell except at the capital price, for that prevents profit entirely. Likewise, if he says: "Do not sell except to so-and-so, and do not buy except from so-and-so," it also prevents profit, because he will not buy what he sold except for less than the price at which he sold it. For this reason, if he said: "Do not sell except to whom you bought from," it is not valid for that reason.

Section: It is valid to set a time limit for the Mudaraba, such as saying: "I enter into a Mudaraba with you on these dirhams for a year; when it expires, do not sell and do not buy." Muhanna said: I asked Ahmad about a man who gave another a thousand [dirhams] as a Mudaraba for a month. He said: "When a month passes, it becomes a loan (qard)." He said: "There is no harm in that." I said: "If the month ends and it is [still] goods?" He said: "When he sells the goods, it becomes a loan." Abu al-Khattab said: There are two narrations regarding the validity of the condition of time-limiting; one is that it is valid. This is the view of Abu Hanifa. The second is that it is not valid. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and Malik, and the choice of Abu Hafs al-Ukbari, for three reasons: one is that it is a contract that occurs absolutely; if it is stipulated to be cut off, it is not valid, like marriage. The second is that this is not from the requirements of the contract, nor does it have any benefit in it, so it is similar to if he stipulated that he should not sell. The evidence that it is not of the requirements of the contract is that it requires that the capital be liquid; if he prevents him from selling, it does not become liquid. The third is that this leads to harm to the agent, because it may be that the profit and the benefit lie in keeping the goods and selling them after the year, so that is prevented by its passing. Our view is that it is a transaction that is timed by a type of commodity, so it is permissible to time it in duration, like agency. The first meaning they mentioned is invalidated by agency and deposit (wadia), and the second and third are invalidated by specifying it with a type of goods; and because the capital owner has the right to prevent him from selling and buying at any time if he is satisfied with taking [the capital] in his wealth as merchandise. So if he stipulated that, he has stipulated what is of the requirements of the contract, so it is valid, as if he said: "When the year expires, do not buy anything," and they have conceded the validity of that.

Section: If the Mudarib stipulates the provision for himself, it is valid, whether he is at home or traveling. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid while at home. Our view is that trade while at home is one of the two states of Mudaraba, so it is valid to stipulate the provision for it, just like traveling, and because he stipulated the provision in exchange for his work, so it is valid, as if he had stipulated it in agency.