Explanation of the author's statement: "The second: that they stipulate in the contract a known duration, even if it is long, and its beginning is from the contract."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said "The second", meaning from the categories of the option, "that they stipulate it". Let Al-Aqili parse this sentence for us: "The second that they stipulate it?"
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And what is the grammatical estimation? Okay, meaning it does not need to be said as a description of a deleted described noun, because the described noun is deleted and the description takes its place. So we say, as I said first, "The second" is the subject, right?
The questioner : ... that they stipulate it?
The Shaykh : The clause "that they stipulate it."
The questioner : In the position of the predicate.
The Shaykh : In the position of the predicate, in the position of the predicate.
The questioner : Predicate, because ... .
The Shaykh : The clause "that they stipulate it" is in the position of what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So, "that they stipulate it": "that" and what it entered upon is in ... the verbal noun is the predicate of the subject. Yes, so we understand from this, from the author's statement "and the second is that they stipulate it", that this category is the option of stipulation. That is, the original state is its absence, except if it is stipulated, because its attribution to the stipulation is from the chapter of attributing a thing to its cause. So this is the option of stipulation: that they stipulate it. The doers are the two transacting parties, and the object is the pronoun "them," meaning it refers back to the option. "That they stipulate it in the contract a known duration" means they stipulate it in the contract for a known duration. And his saying "in the contract": the preposition "in" indicates a temporal or locative context, which requires that this stipulation be in the body of the contract itself, not before it and not after it. But restricting that to the body of the contract is a matter of consideration, and it is one of the opinions. The second opinion is that it is valid in the body of the contract and during the time of the two options. The third is that it is valid before the contract, in the body of the contract, and during the time of the two options, because the right belongs to whom? To them. So if they stipulate it and each of them is pleased with it, there is no harm. If he said, "I buy the house from you, but make the option for me for a month," and he said, "No problem, there is no obstacle," then he said, "I sold you the house for one hundred thousand," and he said, "I accepted," then here the stipulation is valid because it is a right for them and they agreed on it. This is like what came before us regarding conditions, did we complete it? Regarding conditions in sales, yes, okay.
So, the author's saying "in the contract" implies that its stipulation is not valid before the contract or after the contract, and its apparent meaning is even during the time of the option of the session or the option of stipulation. But the correct view, as you heard, is that it is valid before the contract, with the contract, and after the contract, but during the time of the option, either the option of stipulation or the option of the session. But how is the option of stipulation? The option of stipulation introduces a condition into another, such as saying, "I bought this house from you, and I have the option for three days," and he said, "Yes." So when the third day came, he said, "I want to extend the option to six days," and he said, "No problem." He has that right because the contract has not become binding, because it does not become binding until the duration of the option ends.
He said "a known duration, even if it is long". His saying "a known duration": it is known from this that the duration must be known, by saying "until the entry of the month of Rajab." Is this known?
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Until the time of harvest: if the harvest is of a known duration, it is valid according to the stronger opinion. The school's position is that it is not valid because the harvest differs among people; some harvest early and some harvest late. The correct view is that it is valid. Okay, until the arrival of Zayd?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. Why? Because it is unknown. If Zayd has decided to arrive on the following Friday, it is not valid, because an obstacle may occur and he may not be able to arrive on that day. And his saying "a known duration, even if it is long" means, if it is assumed that he made the option of stipulation for a month, a year, or two years, there is no harm. The apparent meaning of the author's words is even in what spoils before the completion of the duration, such as if he buys watermelon from him and says, "I have the option for a week." How is this? The watermelon remains? It is valid. So if its spoiling is feared, it is sold. Then if the sale is confirmed, the value belongs to the buyer, and if the sale is annulled, the value belongs to the seller, and the buyer returns with his price. This is what they said. But if it were said that if the option is stipulated for something that spoils before the completion of the duration, it is not valid, it would have a basis. Why? Because if it is sold, if the value is more, he will choose to confirm.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So the buyer will choose to confirm, and if it is less, he will choose to annul, and at that time there will be harm to one of the parties.
Then the author said "and its beginning is from the contract". Its beginning means the beginning of the duration of the option is from the contract, because it was stipulated in the contract, so its beginning is from the contract. If the contract was made at exactly twelve o'clock at the zenith of the sun, and the option was made for one day, when does it end? When twelve o'clock comes on the following day. Okay, is it not said that its beginning is from the separation, because what is before the separation is established by the Shari'ah, not by the stipulation? The option before the separation is established by the Shari'ah, not by the stipulation. It is said, rather, from the contract, because it does not prevent two causes from converging on one thing, so this, meaning what is between the contract and the separation, is established by the Shari'ah and what? And the stipulation, and there is no obstacle. Yes, if he said to me, "I have the option for three days after the separation," then at that time its beginning is from the separation. Yes, although if someone said that if he said, "I have three days from the separation," it is not valid, if someone said it is not valid because the duration of the separation is unknown, so the duration by which its beginning is restricted is unknown. But such a thing is tolerated because it is the norm that the separation occurs soon. Okay.
He says "its beginning is from the contract". Have you seen, if the option was stipulated one hour after the contract and they are in the place of sale, does the duration begin from the contract or from when it was stipulated? Yes? We say from when it was stipulated. But the author said from the contract because he holds that the option of stipulation is only in the body of the contract, and for this he said its beginning is from the contract.
In an interjected clause, he says, we hope from the owner of the Datsun car.
"and its beginning is from the contract".
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And what is the grammatical estimation? Okay, meaning it does not need to be said as a description of a deleted described noun, because the described noun is deleted and the description takes its place. So we say, as I said first, "The second" is the subject, right?
The questioner : ... that they stipulate it?
The Shaykh : The clause "that they stipulate it."
The questioner : In the position of the predicate.
The Shaykh : In the position of the predicate, in the position of the predicate.
The questioner : Predicate, because ... .
The Shaykh : The clause "that they stipulate it" is in the position of what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So, "that they stipulate it": "that" and what it entered upon is in ... the verbal noun is the predicate of the subject. Yes, so we understand from this, from the author's statement "and the second is that they stipulate it", that this category is the option of stipulation. That is, the original state is its absence, except if it is stipulated, because its attribution to the stipulation is from the chapter of attributing a thing to its cause. So this is the option of stipulation: that they stipulate it. The doers are the two transacting parties, and the object is the pronoun "them," meaning it refers back to the option. "That they stipulate it in the contract a known duration" means they stipulate it in the contract for a known duration. And his saying "in the contract": the preposition "in" indicates a temporal or locative context, which requires that this stipulation be in the body of the contract itself, not before it and not after it. But restricting that to the body of the contract is a matter of consideration, and it is one of the opinions. The second opinion is that it is valid in the body of the contract and during the time of the two options. The third is that it is valid before the contract, in the body of the contract, and during the time of the two options, because the right belongs to whom? To them. So if they stipulate it and each of them is pleased with it, there is no harm. If he said, "I buy the house from you, but make the option for me for a month," and he said, "No problem, there is no obstacle," then he said, "I sold you the house for one hundred thousand," and he said, "I accepted," then here the stipulation is valid because it is a right for them and they agreed on it. This is like what came before us regarding conditions, did we complete it? Regarding conditions in sales, yes, okay.
So, the author's saying "in the contract" implies that its stipulation is not valid before the contract or after the contract, and its apparent meaning is even during the time of the option of the session or the option of stipulation. But the correct view, as you heard, is that it is valid before the contract, with the contract, and after the contract, but during the time of the option, either the option of stipulation or the option of the session. But how is the option of stipulation? The option of stipulation introduces a condition into another, such as saying, "I bought this house from you, and I have the option for three days," and he said, "Yes." So when the third day came, he said, "I want to extend the option to six days," and he said, "No problem." He has that right because the contract has not become binding, because it does not become binding until the duration of the option ends.
He said "a known duration, even if it is long". His saying "a known duration": it is known from this that the duration must be known, by saying "until the entry of the month of Rajab." Is this known?
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Until the time of harvest: if the harvest is of a known duration, it is valid according to the stronger opinion. The school's position is that it is not valid because the harvest differs among people; some harvest early and some harvest late. The correct view is that it is valid. Okay, until the arrival of Zayd?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid. Why? Because it is unknown. If Zayd has decided to arrive on the following Friday, it is not valid, because an obstacle may occur and he may not be able to arrive on that day. And his saying "a known duration, even if it is long" means, if it is assumed that he made the option of stipulation for a month, a year, or two years, there is no harm. The apparent meaning of the author's words is even in what spoils before the completion of the duration, such as if he buys watermelon from him and says, "I have the option for a week." How is this? The watermelon remains? It is valid. So if its spoiling is feared, it is sold. Then if the sale is confirmed, the value belongs to the buyer, and if the sale is annulled, the value belongs to the seller, and the buyer returns with his price. This is what they said. But if it were said that if the option is stipulated for something that spoils before the completion of the duration, it is not valid, it would have a basis. Why? Because if it is sold, if the value is more, he will choose to confirm.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So the buyer will choose to confirm, and if it is less, he will choose to annul, and at that time there will be harm to one of the parties.
Then the author said "and its beginning is from the contract". Its beginning means the beginning of the duration of the option is from the contract, because it was stipulated in the contract, so its beginning is from the contract. If the contract was made at exactly twelve o'clock at the zenith of the sun, and the option was made for one day, when does it end? When twelve o'clock comes on the following day. Okay, is it not said that its beginning is from the separation, because what is before the separation is established by the Shari'ah, not by the stipulation? The option before the separation is established by the Shari'ah, not by the stipulation. It is said, rather, from the contract, because it does not prevent two causes from converging on one thing, so this, meaning what is between the contract and the separation, is established by the Shari'ah and what? And the stipulation, and there is no obstacle. Yes, if he said to me, "I have the option for three days after the separation," then at that time its beginning is from the separation. Yes, although if someone said that if he said, "I have three days from the separation," it is not valid, if someone said it is not valid because the duration of the separation is unknown, so the duration by which its beginning is restricted is unknown. But such a thing is tolerated because it is the norm that the separation occurs soon. Okay.
He says "its beginning is from the contract". Have you seen, if the option was stipulated one hour after the contract and they are in the place of sale, does the duration begin from the contract or from when it was stipulated? Yes? We say from when it was stipulated. But the author said from the contract because he holds that the option of stipulation is only in the body of the contract, and for this he said its beginning is from the contract.
In an interjected clause, he says, we hope from the owner of the Datsun car.
"and its beginning is from the contract".