And in our case, suspending freedom upon the performance of the thousand requires the existence of its performance, so the ruling suspended upon it is not established without its performance, just as one who swears that he will perform [the payment of] a thousand, he is not absolved until he performs it. Fifth, that the subject of a condition in the Book, the Sunnah, and the laws of the Sharia is that the conditioned matter is not established without its condition; for the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever says: There is no god but Allah, will enter Paradise." If he were to say part of it while limiting himself to that, he would not deserve anything but punishment. He also said: "Whoever revives dead land, it is his." If he were to begin the revival, it would not be his. If he said in a competition: "Whoever wins to five hits is the winner," and he reaches four, he is not a winner. And if he said: "Whoever returns my stray animal has a dinar," and he begins to return it, he does not deserve anything. How then could the subjects of Sharia and language be contradicted without evidence? What has come from Ahmad, regarding oaths, in the case of one who swears not to do something and then does part of it, is that he breaks his oath; because an oath regarding abstention is intended to prohibit, so it is placed in the position of a prohibition, and a prohibition against doing something requires abstention from its parts, unlike the suspension of a conditioned matter upon a condition. And Allah knows best. The second category is a characteristic that combines a compensatory transaction and a characteristic, and the ruling of the compensatory transaction is dominant in it, which is the valid Kitabah (contract of manumission); it is equivalent to the pure characteristic regarding emancipation due to its existence, and that he is not liable for his own value, and that the wala' (right of patronage) belongs to his master. It differs from it in that if the master acquits him of the money, he is acquitted of it and becomes free, because his financial liability is occupied by it, so he is acquitted of it through his acquittal, like the price of a sold item, and it is not rescinded