This is supported by the fact that the basic principle governing transactions is permissibility, and that if two contracts are combined without being stipulated as a condition, this is permissible, as mentioned previously. It has also preceded that there is nothing wrong with combining two contracts if it is not made a condition. So we say: if this is permitted without a condition, what makes it prohibited when stipulated as a condition? The Messenger ﷺ said: “A condition agreed upon between Muslims is valid, except a condition that permits what is unlawful or prohibits what is lawful.” (1) This condition neither permits what is unlawful nor prohibits what is lawful. Accordingly, the correct view is that it is permissible, except in two cases:

The first is when one stipulates a loan from which he derives a benefit. This is not permissible, because it is a loan that brings benefit and is therefore usury.

An example of such a loan is when a man comes to borrow from someone, and the latter says: “I will lend you money, but on condition that you sell me your house for one hundred thousand, though it is worth one hundred and twenty thousand.” Here, he has made the loan conditional upon a sale in a manner from which he benefits. The lender has benefited from his loan by receiving a discount of twenty thousand from the value of the house. This is usury and is therefore invalid.

The second is when it constitutes a stratagem for usury: namely, when he stipulates another sale that serves as a stratagem for usury. This too is invalid.

An example is where one person possesses one hundred sāʿ of high-quality wheat, while another possesses two hundred sāʿ of inferior wheat. The owner of the inferior wheat comes to the owner of the high-quality wheat and says: “Sell me the one hundred sāʿ of high-quality wheat for two hundred dirhams.” He replies: “That is acceptable, on condition that you sell me the two hundred sāʿ of inferior wheat for two hundred dirhams.” This