A contract binding upon one party and non-binding upon the other.

His statement, “It is terminated by the revocation of either one of them”: the wording should be, “It is terminated,” without the conjunction “and”; this is more correct. For if one says, “And it is terminated,” then this sentence would not explain his statement, “non-binding.” In fact, the sentence is an independent one, explaining the meaning of his statement, “non-binding.”

His statement, “It is terminated by the revocation of either one of them”: who are the two? The agent and the principal; it is terminated by the revocation of either of them.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words—may Allah have mercy on him—is that it is terminated by the revocation of either of them without qualification, even where this causes harm. However, this must be qualified as applying where it entails no harm. If it does entail harm, neither of them has the right to harm the other. The evidence for this is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “or a debt, without causing harm” [Quran 4:12]. And He, Exalted is He, says: “Do not retain them to cause them harm and thus transgress” [Quran 2:231]. The Prophet ﷺ also said: “There is to be neither harm nor reciprocal harm” (1). Therefore, the scholars said: if termination causes harm to one of the two parties, then non-binding contracts become binding in order to avert harm.

Thus, we know that whatever involves harm is prohibited in the Sacred Law. For example, if an agent accepts an agency arrangement on the understanding that he will handle it during the season, then leaves the principal and revokes it, saying, “Bear witness that I have revoked the agency,” while the principal is unaware, and the season then passes, the revocation in this case harms the principal. Therefore, it is not lawful for the agent here to revoke it unless he seeks permission from