Abū Hanīfa. It is also one opinion within Ahmad’s school and a juristic view within al-Shāfi‘ī’s school. This does not extend, however, to transactions involving valuable property concluded by handing over and receiving goods, since there is no need for this and it is not customary.

The third position:

Contracts are concluded through any words or actions that indicate their intended purpose. Whatever people regard as a sale or a hiring contract is a sale or a hiring contract. Even if people’s conventions concerning words and actions differ, each community concludes contracts through the formulas and actions whose meaning they understand among themselves. There is no fixed standard for this in either Islamic law or language. Rather, it varies with people’s conventions, just as their languages vary. The Arabic terms for sale and hire are not the same as those in the languages of the Persians, Byzantines, Turks, Berbers or Abyssinians. Indeed, even varieties of a single language may differ.

People are not obliged to adhere to one particular set of conventions in their transactions, nor are they forbidden to conclude contracts differently from others, provided that the means they use indicate their intent, although certain forms may be recommended. This is the prevailing approach in Mālik’s legal principles and the apparent position of Ahmad’s school. Accordingly, under the apparent position of his school, sales concluded by handing over and receiving goods are valid without restriction, even if