pay it, and the pledgee then takes it from him by force, whether it is equal to the debt, greater than it, or less than it. This is what is meant by saying that the pledge has been forfeited from its owner. In the pre-Islamic period, when people pledged something and the term fell due without their repaying [the debt], the pledgee would take ownership of it, taking it as his own property whether or not the pledgor consented. There is no doubt that this is the forfeiture of the pledge and the taking of it as property without right. But if it is done with its owner’s choice, then no one has deprived him of his pledge.

As for the reasoning that a contingent sale is invalid, it requires proof. What evidence is there that a contingent sale is invalid? This reasoning is therefore unsound, and the argument based on it is unsound. So we return to the basic principle: the basic ruling concerning contracts and their conditions is permissibility and validity, due to the saying of Allah, the Exalted: “O you who believe, fulfil all contracts.” [al-Ma'idah: 1] This includes fulfilling the contract itself and its conditions. And He, the Exalted, says: “Fulfil every commitment, for every commitment will be called to account.” [al-Isra': 34] A condition is a commitment. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Every condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid” (1). From this it is understood that a condition which does not contradict the Book of Allah is valid. And the Prophet ﷺ said: “Muslims are bound by their conditions, except a condition that makes lawful what is unlawful or makes unlawful what is lawful” (2). Thus, these are four proofs from the Quran and the sunnah, in addition to the invalidity of the evidence cited by the scholars of the madhhab.

Accordingly, the second view is that this condition is valid. Thus, if the pledgor says to the pledgee, “If I bring you what is due to you by such-and-such a time, otherwise the pledge is yours,” and he accepts, then this is valid. Imam Ahmad adopted this view in