Explanation of the author's statement: "And that the slave be a writer, or a eunuch, or a Muslim, and that the female slave be a virgin."

The Shaykh : The second one says "And that the slave be a writer". A slave who was put up for sale was bought by a person on the condition that he be a writer. The condition is valid because it is a desired attribute in the item being sold, so its condition is valid. But is the word "writer" unknown or known? Because writing varies. Some people write, but only they can read their writing. Does this suffice if he is a writer? And some people write and say, "I do not know how to read my writing except in the place where I wrote it." Yes, yes indeed. A man wrote a document between two men regarding the sale of a camel to one of them in a desert between Sham and Unaizah. When they arrived in town, they disputed, and the seller denied the sale. The buyer said, "Between you and me is a document written by so-and-so." The judge summoned so-and-so and said, "Did you write a document between them?" He said, "Yes, this is the document." He said, "Read it." He said, "I do not know how to read it except in the place where I wrote it, because he does not know how to write. He does not know how to write, but he said, 'Do you want me to testify with my tongue? I testify. But with my pen, I do not know how to read it except in the place where I wrote it.'" The judge said, "Your tongue is sufficient for us."
So the result is that the word "writer" contains some ambiguity. It must be specified that the writer’s writing is moderate, meaning a person can read it without sounding out the letters and without reciting it in a measured way. Good.
"Or a eunuch" means the buyer stipulated that the slave is a eunuch, meaning his testicles have been cut. This is the buyer’s intention, because if his testicles are cut, people are safe from his harm, as his desire is nullified or greatly weakened so that he does not look at women. This is the intention of the buyers. But the question remains: how is he a eunuch? Because if his owner cuts his testicles, he is freed from him. It will come to us, if Allah wills, or has passed us in the chapter on freeing slaves, that if one maims his slave, even by cutting a fingertip, he is freed. It is said that perhaps he was a eunuch before he was captured, or that someone other than his owner castrated him, so he is not freed. The important point is that the condition of being a eunuch is a valid condition if stipulated by whom?

The questioner : The buyer's.

The Shaykh : The buyer. Good.
"Or a Muslim". Also, if the buyer stipulated that the slave is a Muslim, his condition is valid. Or a disbeliever? No, because this is a condition of an attribute disliked by Allah the Exalted. Even if the buyer said, "I want him to be a disbeliever so he does not bother me: when the call to prayer is made, he says, 'Go, I will pray'; when Ramadan comes, he says, 'I will fast'; when the lesser pilgrimage comes, he says, 'I will perform it'; when Hajj comes, he says, 'I will perform Hajj.' I want a disbeliever." We say this intention is invalid. It is encouraging disbelievers to be workers or slaves among Muslims. Good.
"And that the female slave be a virgin". If it is stipulated that the female slave is a virgin, the condition is valid because virginity is a desired attribute, so the condition is valid. Good. Until he said, "There is no god but Allah," and the like. What is the ruling on these conditions if they are valid but missing? The ruling is that the one who has the condition, if it is not fulfilled, may annul the contract because something desired has been lost from him. But if he says, "I do not want to annul it, but I want compensation for the missing attribute, meaning the difference between his value with this attribute and without it, and I do not want to return the item being sold. I am interested in him," like stipulating that the slave be a writer, and it turns out he does not write, but he is a good slave in work and good in character, and he says, "I do not care if he writes or not, but I want compensation for the missing attribute." Does he have that? Yes? There is disagreement on this. Some say he has compensation for the missing attribute. This slave is valued as a writer and valued as a non-writer, and the difference between the two values is paid to the buyer, deducted from the price and paid to the buyer. Others said, rather, he has compensation for the missing attribute because the seller deceived him.

The questioner : Shaykh, what is the difference between the two opinions?

The Shaykh : One opinion is that he has compensation for the missing attribute, and the second opinion is that he does not have compensation. The second opinion is that he does not have compensation. So either he accepts him with the missing attribute he stipulated, or he returns him. And an interjected summary says:
Come, clarify that the seller is deceptive and that he deceived the buyer, so the buyer has compensation for the missing attribute. Otherwise, he does not, because the seller may also be deceived and say, "I did not agree to sell him except for this price, and I do not agree for anything to be deducted from the price." The correct opinion in this issue is to say: if the seller is deceptive and stipulated for the buyer something he knows is not in the item being sold, the buyer may demand compensation for the missing attribute, which is the difference between his value with this attribute and without it. And if he is not deceptive, the buyer has the choice between returning it and keeping it without compensation. Yes?

The questioner : Shaykh.