“Does it conflict with what an unqualified contract entails, or with what a contract entails in all circumstances?”

If he means the former, then every condition does so. If he means the latter, his claim is not conceded. What is objectionable is a condition that conflicts with the purpose of the contract, such as stipulating divorce in a marriage contract or rescission in a contract. But stipulating something intended by the contract does not conflict with its purpose.

This is the correct view, supported by the Quran, the Sunnah, consensus, and sound reasoning, together with the presumption of continuity and the absence of contrary evidence.

As for the Quran, Allah Most High says:

“O you who believe, fulfill your contracts.”

Contracts are covenants. He also says:

“When you speak, be just, even if it concerns a close relative, and fulfill your covenant with Allah.”

And He says:

“Fulfill the covenant, for you will surely be questioned about the covenant.”

And He says:

“They had already made a covenant with Allah that they would not turn their backs in flight. And a covenant with Allah must be answered for.”

Thus, He—glorified be He—has commanded the fulfillment of contracts, and this command is general. Likewise, He has commanded the fulfillment of the covenant with Allah and of covenants generally. This includes commitments a person undertakes, as shown by His words:

“They had already made a covenant with Allah.”

This indicates that a covenant with Allah includes commitments a person undertakes, even if Allah had not commanded that particular undertaking before the covenant was made—as with a vow or a sale. Rather, He commanded that it be fulfilled. This is why He coupled it with truthfulness in His words:

“When you speak, be just, even if it concerns a close relative, and fulfill your covenant with Allah.”

For justice in speech concerns statements about the past and present, whereas fulfilling a covenant concerns speech relating to the future, just as