the month and it is 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 (wakala). 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 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.