Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "Or for a period that does not follow the contract."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We say in this that there is a distinction. If it follows the contract, then the option of condition in it is not valid. If it does not follow the contract, then it is valid. This is Arabic, yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Not understood? If it is in English, fine. If the lease is for a job, the option of condition is permissible in it. For example, he hired him to sew a garment for him, or hired him to carry his goods to a specific place. He has the option; it is permissible to stipulate the option of condition for a day or two, and there is no harm in that. If it is for a period, there is a distinction: if the period follows the contract, the option of condition is not valid in it; if it does not follow the contract, the option of condition is valid in it. Is it clear?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Say no, otherwise yes? What is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it understood? Fine, did you understand the lease for a job, or did you not understand it?
The questioner : It is understood.
The Shaykh : He said, "I want you to build this house for me," or "I want you to carry this cargo for me," or "I want you to sew this garment for me," or "I want you to wash this garment for me," for example. This is permissible. He says, "We agreed on this, on the condition that I have the option for a day or two." There is no obstacle, because there is no harm in it, no benefit is lost, and there is absolutely no concern. If it is for a period, we look at it: if the period follows the contract, meaning from the contract, then the option of condition in it is not valid. If it does not follow the contract, the option of condition is permissible, on the condition that its duration ends before the start of the period. On the condition that its duration ends before the start of the period. Fine, he said, "I leased this house to you for a year for one hundred riyals." The start of the period is from the contract, as long as it is not specified, the start of the period is from the contract. He said, "It is fine, but I have the option for ten days." What do you say about this?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : This condition is not valid. The condition is not valid, and the reasoning will come later. The important thing is that we understand the ruling first. Another example: He said, "I leased my house to you for a year for one hundred riyals, on the condition that the period starts on the first day of Rajab, and the option between us is until the twenty-fifth of Jumada al-Akhirah, and we are now on the twelfth night." Is it permissible or not permissible?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Why? Because the start of the lease period is after the end of the option period, after the end of the option of condition, and there is no harm in it. Is it understood now, or not understood?
The questioner : Not understood.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : In the example... not understood.
The Shaykh : Is it understood or not understood now?
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh : And Salim?
The questioner : Yes, understood.
The Shaykh : Understood. Fine, is there anyone who says they did not understand?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Fine, did you understand the first example?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We now have three examples. The first example is for a job, the second example is for a period from the contract, and the third example is for a period that does not follow the contract. Yes, the first example is for a job. Come on, Fawad, what is the example?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Carrying firewood to my house. Fine, "I hired you to carry firewood to my house." He said, "It is fine," and the contract was made on the condition that he has the option for a day or two, right? Is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is valid. Do you agree with this?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is valid because this is for a job. Fine, for a period that follows the contract, meaning its start is from the contract. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, I have my hand raised. Yes, you? Yes.
The questioner : As if he said to him, "I leased my house to you for one hundred riyals from today," and he said, "I have the option for ten days." This is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, okay. So, because the lease period is from the contract. The third example is for a period that does not follow the contract?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : "I leased this house to you for a year."
The questioner : ... after a month, and I have the option... .
The Shaykh : Fine, is it valid? Did you hear what he said? He says, "I leased this house to you for a year, starting after a month, on the condition that I have the option for ten days." Is it permissible or not permissible?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible because the period does not start until after the end of the option period. Fine, if he said, "I leased it to you for a year, starting after ten days, and I have the option for fifteen days," is it valid or not?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid, correct. Because the option of condition does not end until after the start of the period. So what do we do if the time of the lease or the lease period begins while he is still in the option? Fine, if someone asks, "What is the reason? Why is the option of condition not valid in a lease that starts from the contract?" We said, because this hired item: either the lessee benefits from it, and if he benefits from it, what is the use of the option of condition! Or he does not benefit from it, and it remains idle, so in this there is a waste of money that neither the lessee nor the lessor benefits from. This is the reasoning. And because this reasoning is defective, the correct view is that it is permissible to stipulate the option, even for a period that follows the contract, or even for an option that does not end until after the start of the period that does not follow the contract. O Allah, open [our understanding]. Is it known or not known?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, "I leased my house to you for a year for one hundred riyals, starting from today." He said, "Yes, but I have the option for a month." According to the author's statement, it is not valid because the period follows the contract. But according to the stronger view, it is valid. Fine, the lessee moves in. He says, "Move in, rely on Allah." The contract is complete. He moves in. After twenty days have passed, the lease is annulled. We say, "There is no harm, annul the lease." Fine, the period is twenty days. We say, "You owe the equivalent rent." You owe the equivalent rent. Do you understand?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, now nothing has been lost, neither for the lessee nor for the lessor. And this may be needed. There may be a need for someone to lease this house for a year for such and such, and say, "I have the option for a month," because there is a possibility that my house is being renovated now, and perhaps it will be finished before the month. So what is the obstacle? The correct view is that the option of condition is valid, even for a period that follows the contract, or for a period that starts before the end of the time of the option of condition. And if the one who has the option annuls it, the period he lived in is assessed against him at the equivalent rent. Is it clear, everyone? Fine, do not say we did not understand; tomorrow during the discussion, now, if Allah wills, it is clear. So now... you have it, but the others, is it understood, if Allah wills, shall we proceed?
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Not understood? If it is in English, fine. If the lease is for a job, the option of condition is permissible in it. For example, he hired him to sew a garment for him, or hired him to carry his goods to a specific place. He has the option; it is permissible to stipulate the option of condition for a day or two, and there is no harm in that. If it is for a period, there is a distinction: if the period follows the contract, the option of condition is not valid in it; if it does not follow the contract, the option of condition is valid in it. Is it clear?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Say no, otherwise yes? What is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it understood? Fine, did you understand the lease for a job, or did you not understand it?
The questioner : It is understood.
The Shaykh : He said, "I want you to build this house for me," or "I want you to carry this cargo for me," or "I want you to sew this garment for me," or "I want you to wash this garment for me," for example. This is permissible. He says, "We agreed on this, on the condition that I have the option for a day or two." There is no obstacle, because there is no harm in it, no benefit is lost, and there is absolutely no concern. If it is for a period, we look at it: if the period follows the contract, meaning from the contract, then the option of condition in it is not valid. If it does not follow the contract, the option of condition is permissible, on the condition that its duration ends before the start of the period. On the condition that its duration ends before the start of the period. Fine, he said, "I leased this house to you for a year for one hundred riyals." The start of the period is from the contract, as long as it is not specified, the start of the period is from the contract. He said, "It is fine, but I have the option for ten days." What do you say about this?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : This condition is not valid. The condition is not valid, and the reasoning will come later. The important thing is that we understand the ruling first. Another example: He said, "I leased my house to you for a year for one hundred riyals, on the condition that the period starts on the first day of Rajab, and the option between us is until the twenty-fifth of Jumada al-Akhirah, and we are now on the twelfth night." Is it permissible or not permissible?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Why? Because the start of the lease period is after the end of the option period, after the end of the option of condition, and there is no harm in it. Is it understood now, or not understood?
The questioner : Not understood.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : In the example... not understood.
The Shaykh : Is it understood or not understood now?
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh : And Salim?
The questioner : Yes, understood.
The Shaykh : Understood. Fine, is there anyone who says they did not understand?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Fine, did you understand the first example?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We now have three examples. The first example is for a job, the second example is for a period from the contract, and the third example is for a period that does not follow the contract. Yes, the first example is for a job. Come on, Fawad, what is the example?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Carrying firewood to my house. Fine, "I hired you to carry firewood to my house." He said, "It is fine," and the contract was made on the condition that he has the option for a day or two, right? Is it valid or not valid?
The questioner : It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is valid. Do you agree with this?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is valid because this is for a job. Fine, for a period that follows the contract, meaning its start is from the contract. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, I have my hand raised. Yes, you? Yes.
The questioner : As if he said to him, "I leased my house to you for one hundred riyals from today," and he said, "I have the option for ten days." This is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, okay. So, because the lease period is from the contract. The third example is for a period that does not follow the contract?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : "I leased this house to you for a year."
The questioner : ... after a month, and I have the option... .
The Shaykh : Fine, is it valid? Did you hear what he said? He says, "I leased this house to you for a year, starting after a month, on the condition that I have the option for ten days." Is it permissible or not permissible?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible because the period does not start until after the end of the option period. Fine, if he said, "I leased it to you for a year, starting after ten days, and I have the option for fifteen days," is it valid or not?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid, correct. Because the option of condition does not end until after the start of the period. So what do we do if the time of the lease or the lease period begins while he is still in the option? Fine, if someone asks, "What is the reason? Why is the option of condition not valid in a lease that starts from the contract?" We said, because this hired item: either the lessee benefits from it, and if he benefits from it, what is the use of the option of condition! Or he does not benefit from it, and it remains idle, so in this there is a waste of money that neither the lessee nor the lessor benefits from. This is the reasoning. And because this reasoning is defective, the correct view is that it is permissible to stipulate the option, even for a period that follows the contract, or even for an option that does not end until after the start of the period that does not follow the contract. O Allah, open [our understanding]. Is it known or not known?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, "I leased my house to you for a year for one hundred riyals, starting from today." He said, "Yes, but I have the option for a month." According to the author's statement, it is not valid because the period follows the contract. But according to the stronger view, it is valid. Fine, the lessee moves in. He says, "Move in, rely on Allah." The contract is complete. He moves in. After twenty days have passed, the lease is annulled. We say, "There is no harm, annul the lease." Fine, the period is twenty days. We say, "You owe the equivalent rent." You owe the equivalent rent. Do you understand?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, now nothing has been lost, neither for the lessee nor for the lessor. And this may be needed. There may be a need for someone to lease this house for a year for such and such, and say, "I have the option for a month," because there is a possibility that my house is being renovated now, and perhaps it will be finished before the month. So what is the obstacle? The correct view is that the option of condition is valid, even for a period that follows the contract, or for a period that starts before the end of the time of the option of condition. And if the one who has the option annuls it, the period he lived in is assessed against him at the equivalent rent. Is it clear, everyone? Fine, do not say we did not understand; tomorrow during the discussion, now, if Allah wills, it is clear. So now... you have it, but the others, is it understood, if Allah wills, shall we proceed?
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh : Very well.