in that state by the Lawgiver. Property transactions are different: the purpose of their contracts is the exchange of possession. If that exchange has not occurred, their purpose has not been achieved, and the Lawgiver therefore invalidates them because their purpose remains unfulfilled. Thus, it is clear that the Lawgiver does not invalidate what people seek to achieve through transactions unless He prohibits it, because He validates it only by permitting it.

Moreover, when Muslims enter into contracts with one another without knowing whether they are forbidden or permitted, all jurists—as far as I know—deem those contracts valid, provided the parties do not believe them to be forbidden, even if, at the time, a contracting party did not know them to be permitted, whether through independent legal reasoning or by following a scholarly authority. No one says that a contract is valid only if the party concluding it believes that the Lawgiver has permitted it.

If the Lawgiver’s specific permission were a condition for the validity of contracts, no contract would be valid until His permission had been established—just as a judge who rules without exercising independent legal judgment is sinful even if his ruling happens to be correct.

If, however, it is said that there must be scriptural evidence establishing their permissibility, whether general or specific, there are two answers:

First: we reject this requirement, as explained above.

Second: we say that the general scriptural evidence establishes the permissibility of contracts and contractual conditions as a whole, except those excluded by the Lawgiver. We shall discuss the evidence they have raised in objection, if Allah wills. Thus, all that remains is