and they may make exceptions in cases that the scriptural texts permit when the need arises. An example is a sacrificial animal that becomes incapacitated before reaching its appointed destination: it is slaughtered, and the sandal hanging around its neck is then smeared with its blood as a sign to people; whoever takes it acquires ownership of it. The same applies to gifts and similar matters. Nevertheless, their basic rule requires a verbal formula,

because the foundation of contracts is the mutual consent mentioned in Allah’s words:

“Unless it is trade by mutual consent among you,”

and His words:

“If they willingly give you any part of it.”

What people inwardly intend can be determined precisely only through words, which have been devised to express what is in the heart. Acts such as handing over and receiving goods may bear many interpretations. Moreover, contracts belong to the category of verbal acts: in transactions, they are like remembrance of Allah and supplication in worship.

The second position:

Contracts are valid through actions in matters where concluding them by conduct is customary. Examples include sales concluded by handing over and receiving goods; endowments, as when someone builds a mosque and permits people to pray in it, dedicates land for burial, or builds a purification facility and dedicates it to public use; and certain forms of hiring, as when someone hands his garment to a launderer or tailor who works for payment, or boards a boatman’s vessel. The same applies to gifts and similar matters.

If such contracts could not be concluded through actions indicating them, people’s affairs would fall into disorder. Furthermore, from the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, until our own day, people have continually concluded contracts of this kind without a verbal formula, using instead actions that indicate their intent. This is the prevailing approach in the legal principles of