Is it valid to stipulate in the Mukatabah contract that the slave may not travel?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Mukātaba (Contractual Manumission)
Primary text
According to Abu Al-Khattab, the stipulation is valid and the master may prevent him from travel, which is the position of Malik. This is based on the Prophet's saying: 'Muslims are bound by their conditions.' A stipulation that provides benefit is binding, like stipulating a specific currency. The benefit is that the master does not trust that the slave will not flee and fail to return, resulting in the loss of both the slave and the money owed. This differs from a loan, which is a permissible contract from the lender's side, who may demand repayment whenever he wishes and prevent the debtor from traveling before payment, so travel prevention is achieved without stipulation. In Mukatabah, the master cannot prevent travel except through stipulation, and it protects his slave and wealth, so he should not be prevented from securing it.
Supporting text
According to Al-Qadi, the stipulation is invalid, which is the position of Al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Al-Shabi'i, Al-Nakha'i, and Abu Hanifah. This is because it contradicts the requirements of the contract, so the stipulation is invalid, like stipulating the abandonment of earning. A debtor may not be validly stipulated against traveling, just as if someone lent money with the condition that the borrower not travel.