Explanation of the author's statement: "And among them is a defective condition that invalidates the contract, such as one party stipulating another contract upon the other, such as a forward sale, a loan, a sale, a lease, or currency exchange."

The Shaykh : The second section of the categories of conditions is what he indicated by his statement "And among them is a defective condition that invalidates the contract", meaning a defective condition that does not invalidate the contract. An example of a defective condition that does not invalidate the contract is what will come, if Allah wills, in the author's words. He says: "And among them is a defective condition that invalidates the contract, such as one party stipulating another contract upon the other, such as a forward sale, a loan, a sale, a lease, or currency exchange". This is a defective condition that corrupts the contract if one of them stipulates another contract upon the other, such as a forward sale. By this, he means a forward sale (salam), which is paying the price in advance and delaying the delivery of the item. So the buyer says to the seller, "Here are one hundred dirhams for one hundred sa' of wheat, which you will give me after one year." This is a forward sale. If one of them sells something to the other, such as a house, and says, "On the condition that you give me one hundred dirhams for one hundred sa' of wheat," then the condition here is defective and corrupts the contract; it is a defective condition that corrupts the contract. If someone asks, "Why did he separate this from what came before?" We say: Because what came before can be valid or defective. If he stipulated one condition, the condition was valid, but if he combined two conditions, it became defective. Here, however, it is defective from the start; there is no division, and therefore he separated it from what came before.
Similarly, a loan may be stipulated. He says to him, "Sell me your house." He says, "Yes, on the condition that you lend me one hundred thousand." Who says this? The seller. The seller, for example, needs two hundred thousand, so the buyer says to him, "I will buy this house from you for one hundred thousand." He says, "I will sell it to you on the condition that you lend me one hundred thousand." Here, the condition is defective and corrupts the contract, so neither the loan nor the sale is valid. Similarly, a sale may be stipulated. If he requested that he sell him his car, he says, "Yes, I will sell it to you for fifty thousand, on the condition that you sell me your car for fifty thousand, or less, or more." Here, the sale is not valid, neither the original one nor the stipulated one. "And a lease". A lease: he says, "I sold you this house for such and such, let it be one hundred thousand, on the condition that you lease me your house for one year." The contract is not valid because it combines two contracts. Also, if he stipulated currency exchange, such as saying, "Sell me your house for one hundred thousand," and he says, "Yes, on the condition that you exchange these dinars for dirhams for me," then the sale and the exchange are invalid. What is the evidence? The evidence is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited two sales in one sale. He prohibited two sales in one sale and said: This is the evidence. However, this evidence, and this argument based on this evidence, is not correct, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only prohibited two sales in one sale and said: This does not apply to what was mentioned; it only applies to the issue of 'inah (buy-back sale) mentioned earlier, which is selling something for a deferred price and then buying it back for cash at a lower price. Here, we say this is two sales in one sale because the item sold is the same. And the contract? No, the contract is two, two sales. Therefore, he said: meaning the lesser of the two. So here, if he sold it to him for one hundred deferred and bought it back for its price in cash, we say: either do not take anything from the buyer, which is the excess, and take the lesser, which is how much?

The questioner : Eighty.

The Shaykh : Eighty. If you took the excess, you have fallen into riba (usury or interest), because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: Is this clear, brothers?

The questioner : Clear.
Another questioner: It is not clear.

The Shaykh : It is not clear. You sold this car for one hundred thousand for one year; this is a sale. You bought it from the buyer for eighty in cash; this is a sale. Which is worse?

The questioner : The eighty.

The Shaykh : The eighty. I, as the seller, either limit myself to the eighty and do not demand the excess, which is twenty, or if I demand the excess, that is riba (usury or interest). Therefore, he said: meaning we say to the seller, "You have no right to anything but the eighty, and do not demand anything from the buyer," or what does he have? Riba (usury or interest), because this is undoubtedly a stratagem to obtain riba. Is this clear now, or not clear?

The questioner : Clear.

The Shaykh : Clear. Good. So, "two sales in one sale" does not apply except to the issue of 'inah (buy-back sale), because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And what the author mentioned does not apply to this: And on this basis, the correct opinion is that if a contract is stipulated in a sale, the condition is valid and the sale is valid, except in two cases. The first case is if a loan is stipulated that brings benefit; here it is not permissible because it is a loan that brings benefit, and thus it is riba (usury or interest). The second case is if it is a stratagem to obtain riba (usury or interest); if he stipulates another sale that is a stratagem to obtain riba, it is not valid. The evidence for this is that the original ruling in transactions is permissibility, and if he combined two contracts without a condition, it is permissible. Is it not permissible otherwise?

The questioner : Permissible.

The Shaykh : It is permissible, as mentioned earlier. It was previously stated that if one combines two contracts, there is no harm if it is not a condition. So we say: if this is permissible without a condition, what makes it prohibited with a condition? And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And this condition does not make a haram (forbidden) thing halal (lawful), nor does it make a halal thing haram. And on this basis, the correct view is the permissibility of that, except in two cases: the first is a loan that brings benefit to the lender, and the second is if it is a stratagem to obtain riba (usury or interest). An example of a loan: if a man comes to borrow from a person, he says, "I will lend to you, but on the condition that you sell me your house for one hundred thousand, and it is worth one hundred and twenty." Here, the loan is stipulated with the sale in a way that brings benefit, because he says to the needy person who came to borrow, "I will lend to you, no objection, but on the condition that you sell me your house for one hundred thousand, and it is worth one hundred and twenty." We say now the seller benefited from his loan. What was his benefit? That the value of the house was lowered for him by twenty thousand. This is riba (usury or interest), so it is not valid.
The second case is if it is a stratagem to obtain riba (usury or interest), such as if one person has one hundred sa' of good wheat and the second has two hundred sa' of poor wheat. The owner of the poor wheat comes and says to the owner of the good wheat, "Sell it to me." We say, how much is it?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : One hundred sa'. He says, "Sell me one hundred sa' of the good wheat for two hundred dirhams." He says, "No problem, on the condition that you sell me the two hundred sa' of poor wheat for two hundred dirhams." Pay attention, this is not permissible because it is a stratagem to obtain what?

The questioner : Riba (usury or interest).

The Shaykh : That is, selling one hundred sa' of good wheat for one hundred sa' of poor wheat, and this is riba (usury or interest). If he sells one hundred sa' of good wheat for two hundred sa' of poor wheat, this is haram (forbidden) riba (usury or interest), because wheat for wheat must be equal. So the correct view is the permissibility of stipulating another contract, except in two cases: the first is a loan that brings benefit, and the second is if it is a stratagem to obtain riba (usury or interest). This is what applies to the legal maxims, and it is the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him). The madhhab of Imam Malik in transactions is the closest of the madhahib to the Sunnah. You hardly find a statement of Imam Malik in transactions that does not have a narration from Imam Ahmad himself that agrees with the madhhab of Malik. But you know that the followers of the madhahib, as their numbers increased, made the madhhab whatever was the majority opinion. This is the general rule. Therefore, we cannot say that the madhhab of Imam Ahmad, for example, is the prohibition of this sale and that there is only one narration from him. Rather, there must be a narration from him that agrees with what the correct evidence indicates. The madhhab of Malik in this issue is the best and strongest of the madhahib. We have a consistent rule: the original ruling in transactions is permissibility until evidence of prohibition is established. Good.
So, if one of them stipulates another contract upon the other, the madhhab is the invalidation of both contracts, and the correct view is the validity of both contracts, except in two cases: the first is if it is a loan that brings benefit, and the second is if it is a stratagem to obtain the haram (forbidden). This is from the defective conditions that corrupt the contract. Yes?

The questioner : Shaykh, and if, for example, he sold a house and stipulated a loan, but not on the basis that it means...

The Shaykh : Has he finished?

The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: He has not finished.

The Shaykh : Subhan Allah (Glory be to Allah), I am listening now.

The questioner : He has not finished, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Good, yes, wait.