whereas only the condition is void according to Abū Ḥanīfah. According to the school of Ahmad (1), the condition is invalid by unanimous agreement, while there are two opinions as to whether the contract itself is thereby invalidated.

The reason for declaring the condition void is that it constitutes compensation for labor; when it is stipulated that someone other than the one who performed the work is to receive that compensation, the stipulation is null.

Those who render the contract itself void argue that the two parties consented to it only on the basis of that very stipulation and concluded the agreement upon it. Once the stipulation proves invalid, the contract no longer reflects what they agreed to, and they cannot be compelled to uphold it. This is the standard ruling on corrupt conditions in contracts of exchange.

Those who deem the contract sound reply that the validity of this contract does not rest on designating a specific prize; indeed, it may be concluded without any prize at all. Hence, the contract is not vitiated by the fall of the condition—just as in the case of marriage.

The correct view is that the two parties are granted an option once this invalid condition lapses: if they wish, they may ratify the contract, and if they wish, they may annul it, exactly as we rule concerning invalid conditions in sales.

This is the fairest opinion, for compelling them to something they never undertook, and which the Lawgiver did not impose, contradicts the principles of the Sharīʿah; yet annulling the contract altogether would harm them, since they may have a genuine interest (2) in completing it, and completion is permissible. Therefore, they should not be prevented from doing so.