from him, or lease it to him, or marry him, or give him a loan, or exchange the price for him, or other such things. This is a corrupt condition that renders the sale corrupt, regardless of whether it is stipulated by the seller or the buyer, [and we shall mention that], if Allah the Exalted wills.

The fourth is the stipulation of something that contradicts the necessity of the sale, and it is of two types: The first is the stipulation of that which is based on preeminence (taghlib) and extension (sarayah), such as the seller stipulating to the buyer that he manumit the slave. Is this valid? There are two narrations: One is that it is valid, and this is the school of Malik and the apparent school of al-Shafi'i; because Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, bought Barirah, and her people stipulated to her that they would manumit her and keep her wala' (right of inheritance/patronage), but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) repudiated the condition of the wala', not the manumission. The second is that the condition is corrupt, and this is the school of Abu Hanifah; because it is a condition that contradicts the necessity of the contract, similar to when it is stipulated that he shall not sell it, because it is a condition upon him to remove his ownership from it, similar to if he stipulated that he should sell it. There is nothing in the hadith of Aishah to suggest that she stipulated manumission for them; rather, she informed them of her intent to do so without a condition, so they stipulated the wala'. If we rule that it is corrupt, then its ruling is the ruling of the rest of the corrupt conditions that will be mentioned. If we rule that it is valid, and the buyer manumits him, then he has fulfilled what was stipulated upon him. If he does not manumit him, there are two views: One is that he is compelled to do so, because when the condition of manumission is valid, it becomes attached to the subject matter itself, so he is compelled to do it, just as if he had vowed to manumit him. The second is that he is not compelled, because the condition does not necessitate the action of what is stipulated, by evidence of if he had stipulated collateral or a guarantor. Based on this, the seller is entitled to the option of rescission because he (the buyer) did not deliver to him what was stipulated for him, similar to if he had stipulated collateral upon him. If the sold item is damaged, or if it is a slave-girl and he impregnates her, he shall manumit her, and it shall suffice, because the state of servitude remains in her.