the property must be returned to him when he repays the purchase price, the sale is invalid. According to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions, a condition agreed upon before the contract has the same force as one stipulated when the contract is concluded.

Accordingly, any rental income the woman received after learning that this arrangement was forbidden must be counted towards repayment of the principal. Whatever she received before that is subject to the disagreement already mentioned. If the two reach an amicable settlement concerning this, that is better. According to the more correct of the two opinions, she is not obliged to return what she received under a contract whose validity is disputed if she believed it to be valid.

He was asked:

A man who owned a vineyard asked someone to lend him some dirhams. The latter refused unless the man sold him the vineyard for one hundred dirhams, on condition that he would return the vineyard when the man brought back the money. The man sold him the vineyard on this condition, but the condition was not mentioned in the contract. After the contract was concluded, the purchaser said to a group of witnesses: “Bear witness that whenever this man brings back my dirhams, I will return his vineyard to him.” Is this sale valid or not? Must the purchaser fulfil the obligation he undertook to return the vineyard? Is it permissible for the purchaser to deceive the seller?

He replied:

This is not a binding sale. Rather, he must return the man’s vineyard when the man gives him back his dirhams. It is not lawful for him to deceive him.