Explanation of the author's statement: "And the one who has the option may annul the contract, even if the other party is absent and displeased"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And the one who has the option may annul the contract, even if the other party is absent and displeased" means that the one who has the option, whether it is the seller or the buyer or both, has the right to annul the contract, whether the other party is present or absent, or satisfied or displeased. This is because the right belongs to him. So, if they bought and sold this house and granted the option to both of them for a period of one year—no, a long year—the option is granted to both of them for ten days. Then, if one of them annuls it, the other says, "I do not agree; I also have the option." He says, "And I have the option, and I have annulled it." The second one says, "I did not annul it, and I do not agree with that." What is the ruling?
The questioner : It is annulled.
The Shaykh : It is annulled? Even if he does not agree?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is it a condition that the other party knows about the annulment?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, because the jurisprudential principle is that if one's consent is not required, then one's knowledge is not required. This is a general principle: for anyone whose consent is not required, their knowledge is not required. For this reason, it is permissible for a man to divorce his wife even if she does not know, correct?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : It is permissible for him to divorce his wife even if she does not know, because her consent is not required. And if her consent is not required, then there is no benefit in requiring her knowledge.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) says, "even if the other party is absent and displeased". What is the reasoning? There are two reasons. The first is that the right belongs to him. The second reason is that the knowledge of his partner is not required, so his consent is not required. For this reason, it is permissible to annul the contract even if his partner is absent. However, it should be said here that one should testify to the annulment so that what occurs? Dispute between them, between the seller and the buyer, resulting in fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), enmity, and hatred.
The questioner : It is annulled.
The Shaykh : It is annulled? Even if he does not agree?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is it a condition that the other party knows about the annulment?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, because the jurisprudential principle is that if one's consent is not required, then one's knowledge is not required. This is a general principle: for anyone whose consent is not required, their knowledge is not required. For this reason, it is permissible for a man to divorce his wife even if she does not know, correct?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : It is permissible for him to divorce his wife even if she does not know, because her consent is not required. And if her consent is not required, then there is no benefit in requiring her knowledge.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) says, "even if the other party is absent and displeased". What is the reasoning? There are two reasons. The first is that the right belongs to him. The second reason is that the knowledge of his partner is not required, so his consent is not required. For this reason, it is permissible to annul the contract even if his partner is absent. However, it should be said here that one should testify to the annulment so that what occurs? Dispute between them, between the seller and the buyer, resulting in fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), enmity, and hatred.