upon compensation consisting of its value, just as they may agree upon a dower below or above the customary amount. A comparable case is when the parties agree upon a specified settlement where an equivalent or its value is due. That settlement then becomes binding, since the right belongs exclusively to them and concerns no one else.

Another parallel is the position of Ahmad’s followers concerning an invalid partnership. Its invalidity affects whether it is lawful, not the determination of what the parties have mutually agreed upon, just as it does not affect liability for compensation. Whatever entails liability under a valid contract entails liability under an invalid one, and whatever does not entail liability under a valid contract does not entail liability under an invalid one. Since the two are alike regarding liability in principle, they are likewise alike regarding its extent. This is a valuable insight for anyone who reflects upon it. Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man took some grain during a year of high prices and said to the other party, “Agree a price with me for it.” He replied, “Wait until the price stabilizes.” He waited several months, then came and took his share at 150 irdabbs. Is he entitled to money or grain?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. The correct position in this matter is that he is entitled to what they mutually agreed upon, namely, the one hundred and fifty.

This applies whether one holds that what was originally due was the prevailing market price—according to one of the two scholarly positions, which is also one of the two positions reported from Ahmad, namely, that a sale at the prevailing market price is valid—or that the sale was invalid and a replacement was due. For if the two parties reach a settlement