Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "Among them are valid conditions, such as a pledge and deferring the price."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said, (may Allah have mercy on him), "Among them are valid conditions". The criterion for a valid condition is that it does not contradict the implications of the contract. It does not contradict the implications of the contract. If it contradicts the implications of the contract, it is not valid. This is the criterion. Or we can say, pay attention, that it does not contradict the absolute contract.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Which one is correct?
The questioner : The first.
The Shaykh : Why is the second one not valid? Because every condition in a sale contradicts the absolute contract. Do you understand?
The questioner : No, no, I did not understand.
The Shaykh : You did not understand, there is no god but Allah.
The questioner : Correct, I did not understand.
The Shaykh : Okay, what does not contradict the implications of the contract. For example, if I sell you something, the implication of the contract is that I dispose of it through sale, pledge, lease, or endowment, all the dispositions that I legally own. So if the seller conditions on me that I not sell it, for example, he says, "The condition is that you do not sell it to anyone," this contradicts what? The implications of the contract. The contract is that I dispose of it. How can you hold me back? This condition is not valid. As for the absolute contract, for example, if I sell you this item and I condition that the price be deferred, who is the one who conditions? Who is the one who conditions? The buyer. This contradicts the absolute contract but does not contradict the implications of the contract, because the contract is completed now, and every ownership that results from it is valid. However, it contradicts the absolute contract because the absolute contract is that you deliver the price in cash and I deliver the sold item in person. So there is a difference between our saying "what does not contradict the implications of the contract" and "what does not contradict the absolute contract," because we say that every condition in a contract contradicts its absolute form, because its absolute form is that there are no conditions.
So what is valid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What does not contradict the implications of the contract. Okay.
The author said, "such as a pledge". A pledge is among the valid conditions. And who is the one who conditions it? The one who usually conditions it is the seller, by saying, "The buyer bought this item from you for one hundred," and he says, "Yes, I sold it to you, but I want you to give me a pledge," so he gave him a pledge. This condition is valid because it does not contradict the implications of the contract; rather, it increases the strength and security of the contract, because the seller is now reassured if he knows that the price for which he sold it has a pledge. For the benefit of a pledge is that if he does not pay, it is sold and the price is recovered from it.
The second one, he said, "deferring the price". Deferring the price, who is the one who conditions it?
The questioner : The buyer's.
The Shaykh : The buyer, the opposite of the first. A pledge is conditioned by the seller; deferring the price is conditioned by the buyer. He sold him goods for one hundred, and he said, "I have nothing in my hand now, but I want the price to be deferred for one month," so the sale was completed on that basis. This sale is valid and the condition is valid because this does not contradict the implications of the contract; rather, it increases its strength and precision. Okay.
And the author's statement, "deferring the price", did not specify that it is required that the term be known. However, it is a condition that requires the term to be known, by saying "until Ramadan," "until Dhul-Hijjah," or the like. It must be known. If he said, "for a deferred price until Zayd arrives," because the buyer owes Zayd dirhams and when he arrives he will pay from them, is this permissible? No, because it is unknown. It is not known when he will arrive, and it is not known whether he will arrive or not. So it is unknown, and this condition is not valid.
The buyer conditioned that the price be deferred until ease, until Allah makes it easy for him. The school of thought says it is not permissible because the term is unknown, for it is not known when Allah will make it easy for him. Allah may make it easy for him in an hour, a wealthy relative may die and he may inherit from him, or he may remain for years without it becoming easy. So the school of thought is that this condition is not valid, and the price is due immediately, not deferred. The operative cause of that is ignorance. But the correct view is that it is valid, because this is the implication of the contract, as long as the seller knows that the buyer is in financial difficulty, he has no right to demand it legally except after he becomes wealthy, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:280] So this condition only confirms the granting of a delay, and granting a delay is obligatory. So if the seller knows that the buyer is in financial difficulty, he is obligated to grant him a delay until he becomes wealthy, whether he conditioned that or not. And on this basis, his condition is considered what? A confirmation. It is considered a confirmation, so it is valid.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Which one is correct?
The questioner : The first.
The Shaykh : Why is the second one not valid? Because every condition in a sale contradicts the absolute contract. Do you understand?
The questioner : No, no, I did not understand.
The Shaykh : You did not understand, there is no god but Allah.
The questioner : Correct, I did not understand.
The Shaykh : Okay, what does not contradict the implications of the contract. For example, if I sell you something, the implication of the contract is that I dispose of it through sale, pledge, lease, or endowment, all the dispositions that I legally own. So if the seller conditions on me that I not sell it, for example, he says, "The condition is that you do not sell it to anyone," this contradicts what? The implications of the contract. The contract is that I dispose of it. How can you hold me back? This condition is not valid. As for the absolute contract, for example, if I sell you this item and I condition that the price be deferred, who is the one who conditions? Who is the one who conditions? The buyer. This contradicts the absolute contract but does not contradict the implications of the contract, because the contract is completed now, and every ownership that results from it is valid. However, it contradicts the absolute contract because the absolute contract is that you deliver the price in cash and I deliver the sold item in person. So there is a difference between our saying "what does not contradict the implications of the contract" and "what does not contradict the absolute contract," because we say that every condition in a contract contradicts its absolute form, because its absolute form is that there are no conditions.
So what is valid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What does not contradict the implications of the contract. Okay.
The author said, "such as a pledge". A pledge is among the valid conditions. And who is the one who conditions it? The one who usually conditions it is the seller, by saying, "The buyer bought this item from you for one hundred," and he says, "Yes, I sold it to you, but I want you to give me a pledge," so he gave him a pledge. This condition is valid because it does not contradict the implications of the contract; rather, it increases the strength and security of the contract, because the seller is now reassured if he knows that the price for which he sold it has a pledge. For the benefit of a pledge is that if he does not pay, it is sold and the price is recovered from it.
The second one, he said, "deferring the price". Deferring the price, who is the one who conditions it?
The questioner : The buyer's.
The Shaykh : The buyer, the opposite of the first. A pledge is conditioned by the seller; deferring the price is conditioned by the buyer. He sold him goods for one hundred, and he said, "I have nothing in my hand now, but I want the price to be deferred for one month," so the sale was completed on that basis. This sale is valid and the condition is valid because this does not contradict the implications of the contract; rather, it increases its strength and precision. Okay.
And the author's statement, "deferring the price", did not specify that it is required that the term be known. However, it is a condition that requires the term to be known, by saying "until Ramadan," "until Dhul-Hijjah," or the like. It must be known. If he said, "for a deferred price until Zayd arrives," because the buyer owes Zayd dirhams and when he arrives he will pay from them, is this permissible? No, because it is unknown. It is not known when he will arrive, and it is not known whether he will arrive or not. So it is unknown, and this condition is not valid.
The buyer conditioned that the price be deferred until ease, until Allah makes it easy for him. The school of thought says it is not permissible because the term is unknown, for it is not known when Allah will make it easy for him. Allah may make it easy for him in an hour, a wealthy relative may die and he may inherit from him, or he may remain for years without it becoming easy. So the school of thought is that this condition is not valid, and the price is due immediately, not deferred. The operative cause of that is ignorance. But the correct view is that it is valid, because this is the implication of the contract, as long as the seller knows that the buyer is in financial difficulty, he has no right to demand it legally except after he becomes wealthy, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: