Explanation of the author's statement: "Or the buyer conditions upon the seller the carrying of the firewood, or its breaking, or the sewing of the garment, or its tailoring; and if two conditions are combined, the sale is invalid."

The questioner : Or the buyer conditions.

The Shaykh :"Or the buyer conditions" The phrase "or the buyer conditions" is used because the previous condition was for the benefit of the seller, whereas here the condition is for the benefit of the buyer. "Or the buyer conditions upon the seller the carrying of the firewood" The article "al" in "al-hutub" (the firewood) here indicates known reference, meaning the firewood that was the subject of the sale. For example, he bought firewood from him and said, "On the condition that you carry it to my house," and his house is known to be in a specific location. This is valid. If someone asks, "What is the evidence?" we say that we have general evidence, which is? Is it legal?

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : and by analogy to the case where the seller conditions a known benefit in the item being sold.
He said, "And the carrying of the firewood or its breaking" He conditions upon him that he break it. Who is the carrying upon? The carrying is upon the buyer, and here he only breaks it. "Or the sewing of the garment" He conditions upon the one from whom he bought the cloth that he sew the garment. The condition here is valid because it is a known benefit in the item being sold. "Or its tailoring" Tailoring the garment. Tailoring is different from sewing. If he conditions on both sewing and tailoring, that will come in the author's discussion.
Then he said, "And if two conditions are combined, the sale is invalid" If two conditions are combined from what he said about the seller conditioning on the dwelling in the house, if two conditions are combined, the contract becomes defective. For example, if the seller conditions on dwelling in the house for a month and conditions on another thing, dwelling in the shop for a year, the condition is not valid and the sale is invalid. Likewise, if the buyer conditions upon the seller both the carrying of the firewood and its breaking, it is not valid; the sale is invalid because the condition is invalid. If the condition is invalid, then the corresponding price is unknown, which leads to the ambiguity of the price. Knowledge of the price is a condition for the validity of the sale, so it is not valid. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . Yes, the point is his saying . If the buyer conditions on the carrying of the firewood and its breaking, these are two conditions in a sale. Or if the seller conditions on dwelling in the house and the shop for a month, it is not valid. However, this argument using this evidence is not correct. The correct view is the permissibility of combining two conditions, or even three or four conditions, according to what they agree upon. The hadith does not indicate this in any way. Rather, the two conditions referred to in a sale are the two conditions that necessitate a religious prohibition. And this, which I mean by combining two conditions in what was mentioned, does not necessitate a religious prohibition. It is said, "Do you not permit the buyer to condition upon the seller that the slave be Muslim and a writer?" They will say, "Yes." We say, "These are two conditions in a sale, and you say that this is permissible. What is the difference? You say that if it is conditioned that he be a Muslim and a writer, it is permissible according to you, and these are two conditions in a sale, yet you validate these two conditions. Therefore, the correct view is the permissibility of combining two, three, or four conditions. If he conditions on the carrying of the firewood, its breaking, and its placement in the designated spot in the house, this condition would be valid, even if there were three conditions, because they are known conditions and do not necessitate a religious prohibition. The original rule in transactions is what? Permissibility and lawfulness. And the hadith, as you know, intends what? The two conditions that necessitate a religious prohibition, such as ignorance, riba, injustice, and the like. Here is an interjected phrase where he says.