whether they are contracts of sale, lease, pledge, or endowment, for they all involve binding, fastening, and tying.

His statement, “by an offer and acceptance”: the offer is the expression issued by the seller, or by one acting in his place; and the acceptance is the expression issued by the buyer, or by one acting in his place. In fact, I only said “or by one acting in his place” by way of clarification; otherwise, whoever acts in the seller’s place is called a seller. Thus, an agent, for example, is a seller, and the same applies to whoever acts in the buyer’s place.

His statement, “after it”: the author stipulated that the acceptance must come after the offer, because it is subsidiary to it. Thus, one says, “I have sold you this,” and the buyer says, “I accept.” If the acceptance were to precede the offer—for example, if the buyer said, “I accept,” and then the seller said, “I have sold”—it would not be valid, because acceptance is subsidiary to the offer.

The author did not mention any specific formula for a sale. This indicates that it is concluded by whatever indicates it, such as saying, “I have sold you this item,” “I have given you this item,” or “I have made you the owner of this item.” What matters is that there is no particular wording required for a sale; rather, it is concluded by any wording that indicates it.

Does this apply to all contracts?

The answer is that there is a difference of opinion. Some scholars stipulated particular expressions for certain contracts and said that they must be used. For example, with marriage, they said that one must say, “I give you in marriage,” and the other must say, “I accept.”

Others said that all contracts are concluded by whatever customarily indicates them. This view is the preponderant one, indeed the one that must be adopted, and it is the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam