to sales as well. If he says, “I testify that so-and-so sold his house to so-and-so,” this testimony is insufficient; rather, he must mention all seven conditions of sale. If he does not mention the seven conditions, his testimony is not accepted. Likewise, if he testifies to an endowment, saying that so-and-so endowed his house, he must mention the five previously stated conditions of an endowment. Every contract requires these conditions.

Is it also necessary to mention the absence of impediments? It is not. In marriage, for example, he need not say, “She is among those lawful for him to marry,” because the basic presumption regarding a contract is that it is valid and free of impediments. Similarly, in a sale, he need not say that the sale did not take place after the second Friday call to prayer, nor in a mosque, nor as a sale over his brother’s sale, and the like. If we were to require the witness to mention both the conditions and the impediments, testimony would sometimes fill entire volumes, since he would have to mention the conditions—which may be many—as well as the impediments, which may likewise be many. If we stipulated both, it would become difficult for people.

Some scholars have said that mentioning the conditions is not required; rather, the defendant may point out if a condition was lacking. This is because the basic presumption concerning contracts is that they are valid and sound. Supporting this is the hadith of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, recorded by al-Bukhari: some people said, “O Messenger of Allah, people bring us meat, and we do not know whether they mentioned Allah’s name over it or not.” He, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Mention Allah’s name yourselves and eat.” (1) Thus, he ruled the slaughter lawful despite the absence of