For when a contract has a purpose intended in all its forms, and a stipulation is included that conflicts with that purpose, two contradictory things have been combined: affirming that purpose and negating it. Nothing is thereby accomplished. Such a stipulation is invalid by agreement; indeed, according to us, it also invalidates the contract.

Defective stipulations may be invalid because they conflict with the Lawgiver’s purpose, such as stipulating that patronage rights belong to someone other than the emancipator. This does not conflict with what the contract entails or with its purpose, for its purpose is ownership, and emancipation may also be an intended purpose of the contract: a slave is often purchased with the intention of freeing him. Establishing patronage rights does not conflict with the contract’s purpose; rather, it conflicts with Allah’s Book and His stipulation, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, explained when he said:

“Allah’s Book takes precedence, and Allah’s stipulation is more binding.”

Thus, if a stipulation conflicts with the purpose of the contract, the contract is futile. If it conflicts with the Lawgiver’s purpose, it contravenes Allah and His Messenger. But if neither is the case—if it is neither futile nor contains anything Allah and His Messenger have forbidden—there is no basis for prohibiting it. Rather, it must be deemed permissible, for it is something people deliberately undertake and need. Were it not for their need, they would not do it; undertaking an action is an indication of a need for it. Since its prohibition has not been established, it is permissible, in light of the provisions in the Quran and Sunnah that remove hardship.

Furthermore, regarding contracts and stipulations, one of the following positions must be adopted:

They are neither permissible nor valid unless their permissibility is established by specific evidence from Islamic law, whether a scriptural text, consensus, or