Now, if it is argued, “There must be proof from revealed law establishing their permissibility, whether general or specific,” there are two answers. The first is to reject this premise, as explained above. The second is to say that the general proofs of revealed law establish the permissibility of contracts and conditions as a whole, except those excluded by the Lawgiver. We shall address the evidence they cite in opposition, Allah willing. This leaves only the third view, which is the one intended here.

As for the Prophet’s statement—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—“Any condition that is not in Allah’s Book is invalid, even if there are a hundred conditions. Allah’s Book takes precedence, and Allah’s condition is more binding,” the word “condition” sometimes means the act of stipulating and at other times the thing stipulated. The same applies to “promise” and “breach of promise.” An example is their expression, “a dirham of the ruler’s minting.” What is meant here—and Allah knows best—is the thing stipulated, not the verbal act of stipulating it. That is why the hadith says, “Even if there are a hundred conditions”—that is, even if a person has stipulated a hundred conditions. It does not mean counting the number of times the condition was uttered; rather, it means counting the things stipulated. The proof of this is the statement, “Allah’s Book takes precedence, and Allah’s condition is more binding”—that is, Allah’s Book takes precedence over this condition, and Allah’s condition is more binding than it. Such a comparison is warranted only when that condition conflicts with Allah’s Book and His condition because the thing stipulated is something Allah Most High has forbidden.

If, however, the stipulated matter is something Allah has not forbidden, it does not conflict with Allah’s Book or His condition, and so there is no basis for saying, “Allah’s Book takes precedence, and Allah’s condition is more binding.” The meaning, then, is that if anyone stipulates a matter that is not found in Allah’s ruling or His Book, whether through an intermediary or without one, it is invalid. This is because the stipulated matter must be something permissible to do without the condition before it may validly be stipulated and become obligatory through that condition. Since Allah’s Book never assigns the bond of clientage to anyone other than the emancipator, this stipulated matter—namely,