Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (29/339)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

the people already knew that this condition was forbidden, yet proceeded with it after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had prohibited it. Their stipulation therefore had no more effect than if they had not made it. He explained to ʿĀ’ishah that stipulating the rights of patronage in their favour would not harm her. This was not a command to impose the condition, but permission for the purchaser to agree to it if the seller refused to sell without it, together with an assurance that it would not harm the purchaser. A person may enter into such a transaction. Thus, it was permission to purchase despite the seller’s stipulation, and permission to agree with them to that stipulation, since doing so caused no harm.

The hadith itself explicitly states that an invalid condition of this kind does not invalidate the contract. This is the correct view. It is the position of Ibn Abī Laylā and others, and Ahmad’s position according to the more evident of the two reports from him. Only those who assumed that an invalid condition invalidates the contract found the hadith problematic. That is not the case. Rather, if the person imposing the condition knows that it is forbidden and unlawful to stipulate—as was the case with these people—then imposing it has no more effect than not imposing it. The purchaser’s purchase is therefore valid, and he acquires ownership, while this condition—which the seller already knows to be forbidden and impermissible to fulfil—is of no effect.

As for those people, if they knew of the prohibition before ʿĀ’ishah sought a ruling, there is no difficulty. However, nothing in the hadith indicates this. Rather, it states:

“The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stood up one evening and said: ‘What is the matter with people who stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah? Whoever stipulates a condition that is not in the Book of Allah, it is invalid, even if there are a hundred such conditions.’”

This took place immediately after ʿĀ’ishah sought a ruling, and those people had learned

الْقَوْمَ كَانُوا قَدْ عَلِمُوا أَنَّ هَذَا الشَّرْطَ مَنْهِيٌّ عَنْهُ فَأَقْدَمُوا عَلَى ذَلِكَ بَعْدَ نَهْيِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَكَانَ وُجُودُ اشْتِرَاطِهِمْ كَعَدَمِهِ وَبَيَّنَ لِعَائِشَةَ أَنَّ اشْتِرَاطَك لَهُمْ الْوَلَاءَ لَا يَضُرُّك فَلَيْسَ هُوَ أَمْرًا بِالشَّرْطِ؛ لَكِنْ إذْنًا لِلْمُشْتَرِي فِي اشْتِرَاطِهِ إذَا أَبَى الْبَائِعُ أَنْ يَبِيعَ إلَّا بِهِ وَإِخْبَارًا لِلْمُشْتَرِي أَنَّ هَذَا لَا يَضُرُّهُ وَيَجُوزُ لِلْإِنْسَانِ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ فِي مِثْلِ ذَلِكَ. فَهُوَ إذْنٌ فِي الشِّرَاءِ مَعَ اشْتِرَاطِ الْبَائِعِ ذَلِكَ وَإِذْنٌ فِي الدُّخُولِ مَعَهُمْ فِي اشْتِرَاطِهِ لِعَدَمِ الضَّرَرِ فِي ذَلِكَ وَنَفْسُ الْحَدِيثِ صَرِيحٌ فِي أَنَّ مِثْلَ هَذَا الشَّرْطِ الْفَاسِدِ لَا يُفْسِدُ الْعَقْدَ. وَهَذَا هُوَ الصَّوَابُ. وَهُوَ قَوْلُ ابْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى وَغَيْرِهِ وَهُوَ مَذْهَبُ أَحْمَد فِي أَظْهَرِ الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ عَنْهُ. وَإِنَّمَا اسْتَشْكَلَ الْحَدِيثَ مَنْ ظَنَّ أَنَّ الشَّرْطَ الْفَاسِدَ يُفْسِدُ الْعَقْدَ وَلَيْسَ كَذَلِكَ؛ لَكِنْ إنْ كَانَ الْمُشْتَرِطُ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ شَرْطٌ مُحَرَّمٌ لَا يَحِلُّ اشْتِرَاطُهُ فَوُجُودُ اشْتِرَاطِهِ كَعَدَمِهِ؛ مِثْلَ هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ. فَيَصِحُّ اشْتِرَاءُ الْمُشْتَرِي وَيَمْلِكُ الْمُشْتَرِي وَبِلَغْوِ هَذَا الشَّرْطِ الَّذِي قَدْ عَلِمَ الْبَائِعُ أَنَّهُ مُحَرَّمٌ لَا يَجُوزُ الْوَفَاءُ بِهِ. وَأَمَّا أُولَئِكَ الْقَوْمُ فَإِنْ كَانُوا قَدْ عَلِمُوا بِالنَّهْيِ قَبْلَ اسْتِفْتَاءِ عَائِشَةَ فَلَا شُبْهَةَ. لَكِنْ لَيْسَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ؛ بَلْ فِيهِ {أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَامَ عَشِيَّةً فَقَالَ: مَا بَالُ أَقْوَامٍ يَشْتَرِطُونَ شُرُوطًا لَيْسَتْ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مَنْ اشْتَرَطَ شَرْطًا لَيْسَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ فَهُوَ بَاطِلٌ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِائَةَ شَرْطٍ} وَهَذَا كَانَ عَقِبَ اسْتِفْتَاءِ عَائِشَةَ وَقَدْ عَلِمَ أُولَئِكَ