1. Stipulations that contradict an explicit legislative text
Stipulations in a trade are invalid if they contradict an explicit legislative text.

Evidence:
(1) From the Sunnah:
Aisha narrated, “Barirah came to ask me about her manumission. I said, ‘If you like, I can give your masters your price but your allegiance [1014] Translator’s note: i.e., the rights of kinship and inheritance. will be to me.’ Her masters said, ‘If you like, you can pay what remains of her price.’” Sufyan, one of the narrators, once related that they said, “If you like, you can free her, but her allegiance will be to us.” Aisha continued, “When the Messenger of Allah came, I mentioned it to him. He said: ‘Buy her and free her. Indeed, allegiance is to the one who frees.’ Then, the Messenger of Allah stood on the pulpit – Sufyan, one of the narrators, once said: ‘The Messenger of Allah ascended the pulpit’ – and said: ‘What is the matter with people who stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah? Whoever stipulates conditions that are not in the Book of Allah, their conditions will be invalid, even if they stipulate them a hundred times.’” [1015] Reported by Bukhari (456) and Muslim (1504). The wording here is from Bukhari.

The Messenger of Allah declared invalid every stipulation not found in the Book of Allah, may His praise be Glorified, if there is something that contradicts it in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. The meaning of his statement, “not in the Book of Allah”, is “not in the rulings of Allah or the rulings of His Messenger and not in what is indicated by the Book and the Sunnah.” [1016] Al-Umm by Shafi`i (5/73) and Al-Istidhkar by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (5/444).

(2) From the scholarly consensus:
A consensus on this issue was related by Ibn al-Battal [1017] Ibn al-Battal said: “The scholars unanimously agree that if someone stipulates conditions in a trade that are impermissible, then none of those conditions are valid.” Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (6/293). and Ibn Taymiyyah [1018] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Whenever a condition contradicts the conditions set by Allah and His Messenger, it is invalid. For example, if someone stipulates that another person must be considered his son, or he must free someone as a slave, or that his son or relative should not inherit from him, or that the other party should support him in everything he desires, or help him against anyone who opposes him, whether it is based on right or falsehood, or obey him in everything he commands, or that he will absolutely guarantee him entry into Paradise and protection from the Fire, and similar conditions.” Majmu` al-Fatawa (35/97).

2. Stipulations containing uncertainty in a trade
A stipulation containing uncertainty invalidates a trade, [1019] For example, if someone bought a cow on the condition that it yield a certain amount of milk, or any other uncertain characteristic. and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1020] Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah (3/137). See also Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/169). Malikis, [1021] Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/363) and Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/226). Shafi`is, [1022] Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/407) and Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/324). and Hanbalis. [1023] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/190).

Evidence:
(1) From the Sunnah:
Abu Hurayrah narrated, “The Messenger of Allah forbade transaction by stone throwing and transactions involving risk.” [1024] Reported by Muslim (1513).
(2) Because a stipulation containing uncertainty may not be possible to fulfil, or fulfilling it may be prohibited by the Shariah, making it impermissible to stipulate in the first place. [1025] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/190).
(3) Because a risky trade has an uncertain outcome, and trades are built upon clarity and transparency. [1026] Tabyin al-Haqa’iq by Zayla`i (4/46) and Nihayat al-Muhtaj by Ramli (3/405).

3. Stipulating a loan contract within a sales contract
Stipulating a loan contract within a sales contract is impermissible. [1027] This takes different forms. Ibn `Uthaymin said: “The first form is that the term ‘salaf’ here refers to ‘salam’, meaning delivering money to him in exchange for a deferred commodity and stipulating a sale in the contract. According to this interpretation, it would be like the statement, ‘He forbade two trades in one’, based on one of the previous interpretations. However, in reality this is not correct, because combining two contracts in this way does not involve anything prohibited by the Shariah and there is no harm in it. The second form is when someone says, ‘I hereby sell you such-and-such with the condition that you lend me such-and-such.’ He comes to him seeking to sell his goods, saying, ‘I want you to sell to me your house.’ If the other person says, ‘I will sell you my house on the condition that you lend me such-and-such’, this is impermissible. Why? Because it involves a benefit due to the loan. If the seller did not sell him the house, he would not have loaned him money. The third form is the opposite, where someone says, ‘I buy from you such-and-such with the condition that you lend me such-and-such.’ This is also not valid. Lending can sometimes be from the seller and sometimes from the buyer. In both of these forms, the loan is taken away from its intended purpose, which is to ease circumstances. In these two forms, it deviates from this.” Fath Dhi al-Jalal wa al-Ikram bi Sharh Bulugh al-Maram (3/551).

Evidence:
(1) From the Sunnah:
`Amr ibn Shu`ayb said, “My father narrated to me from his father, until he mentioned `Abdullah ibn `Umar, that the Messenger of Allah said, 'It is not permissible to sell on the condition of a loan, have two conditions within one transaction, sell what you do not have, and profit from what you do not possess.'” [1028] Reported by Abu Dawud (3504), Tirmidhi (1234), Nasa’i (4631), Ibn Majah (2188), and Ahmad (6918). Tirmidhi said: “This hadith is hasan sahih.” Graded sahih by Ibn Hazm in Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (8/520), Ibn al-Qattan in Al-Wahm wa al-Iham (5/487), and Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmu` al-Fatawa (30/84).

(2) From the scholarly consensus:
A consensus on this issue was related by Ibn `Abd al-Barr, [1029] Ibn `Abd al-Barr said: “The scholars unanimously agree that whoever conducts a trade with a condition of a loan being given or taken, and the loan is either given or taken, then the trade is invalid and rejected.” Al-Tamhid (24/385). Ibn Rushd, [1030] Ibn Rushd said: “The jurists unanimously agree that combining between a sale and a loan is an invalid transaction.” Bidayat al-Mujtahid (3/180). al-Qurtubi, [1031] Qurtubi said: “The scholars agree that combining between a sale and a loan is prohibited.” Tafsir al-Qurtubi (3/360). Ibn Qudamah, [1032] Ibn Qudamah said: “If he sells something on the condition that the buyer loans him or lends him money, or if the buyer imposes this condition on him, it is prohibited and the trade is invalid, and I do not know of any difference of opinion regarding this.” Al-Mughni (4/177). Qarafi, [1033] Qarafi said: “The Muslim community unanimously agree on the permissibility of selling and lending separately, and they unanimously agree on the impermissibility of combining them as it could be a means of engaging in usury.” Al-Furuq (3/266). and al-Zarkashi. [1034] Zarkashi said: “There is a consensus on the permissibility of selling and lending separately and the impermissibility of combining them, which could serve as a means of engaging in usury.” Al-Bahr al-Muhit (8/90).

(3) Because it is a means of engaging in usury. If one stipulates a loan, the price increases because of it, making the price increase compensation for the loan and profit for the creditor. This is forbidden usury and therefore invalidates the contract, just as if it had been explicitly declared. [1035] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/177). See also Al-Furuq by Qarafi (3/266) and Al-Bahr al-Muhit by Zarkashi (8/90).

(4) Because it is a loan which brings benefit, which is impermissible. [1036] Fath Dhi al-Jalal wa al-Ikram bi Sharh Bulugh al-Maram by Ibn `Uthaymin (3/559).

4. Combining a sale and loan without a stipulation within a single loan contract
Combining a sale and loan without a stipulation within a single loan contract is permissible, and this was the position of the majority: the Hanafis, [1037] If lending precedes selling, there is no objection, and there is no difference of opinion on this matter. However, if selling precedes lending, then some scholars permitted it whilst others disliked it. Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/167). Malikis, [1038] Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (3/67) and Minah al-Jalil by `Ulaysh (5/77). and Shafi`is. [1039] Al-Hawi al-Kabir by Mawardi (5/351). This is because a sale by itself is permissible and a loan by itself is permissible, so combining them without a stipulation is also permissible. [1040] See Al-Hawi al-Kabir by Mawardi (5/351).

Fourthly: Stipulations that negate the intrinsic nature of a contract
1. Stipulating not to sell or gift a commodity
If someone stipulates a condition that negates the intrinsic nature of a contract, such as selling a commodity with the condition that the buyer neither sells nor gifts it to anyone else, then the stipulation is invalid [1041] As for when the stipulation is in the interest of either of the contracting parties, or if it serves a valid and lawful purpose, then the stipulation and sale are valid. Ibn `Uthaymin said: “In the statement ‘not to sell’, the seller is the one imposing the stipulation on the buyer not to sell the purchased item. The author states that such a condition is invalid, and this scenario can take two forms.   Firstly, if the stipulation is an absolute prohibition on selling, it is considered an invalid condition according to the madhhab.   Secondly, if the condition is a prohibition on selling to a specific individual, it is also invalid, because it goes again the inherent nature of the contract, which implies that the owner of an item has the right to sell it to whomever they wish or not sell it if they wish.   However, there could be exceptions to this. For example, if the stipulation not to sell is related to the interests of the contracting parties or the contracted, then the correct view is that it is valid.   An example related to the buyer’s interest is as follows: ‘I know that this man is in need of a house, and I want to sell him my house. However, I know that he does not handle things responsibly. It is possible that I sell it to him in the morning and he sells it at the end of the day. I only want to sell it to him so that he can benefit from it and live in it. So, I say to him: “I will only sell you this house on the condition that you do not sell it.” He agrees to this condition, and this is for the benefit of the buyer.’   An example related to the seller’s interest is: ‘I have a servant who holds a high position. A person I trust and have confidence in approaches me and says: “Sell me your servant.” I respond: “I will sell you my servant on the condition that you do not sell him, because I fear that if my servant is sold to an unscrupulous person, he will mistreat and humiliate him.” I say, “Yes, I will sell you my slave on the condition that you do not sell him.” This condition is for the benefit of the person on whom the stipulation is imposed.’   The second scenario is also permissible because there might be a specific person who is known for misconduct and evil who wishes to buy a slave. However, the seller has a trustworthy and reliable person who wants to buy the slave. In this situation, the seller agrees to sell the slave to the trustworthy individual but imposes a stipulation that the slave should not be sold to that specific person known for misconduct. This serves the interests of the contracted (i.e., the person being sold).” Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/244). but the transaction remains valid, and this was the soundest view of the Hanbali school of thought. [1042] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/252, 253) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/193).

Evidence:
(1) From the Sunnah:
Aisha narrated, "Barirah came and said, 'I have drawn a contract of manumission with my masters for nine uqiyyahs, with one uqiyyah to be paid each year, so help me.' A’ishah said, "If your masters agree, I will pay them the sum at once and free you on condition that your allegiance will be to me." Barirah went to her masters but they refused the offer. The Messenger of Allah heard about that and asked me, and I informed him. He said, 'Buy and manumit her and stipulate that her allegiance should be for you, for allegiance is to the one who frees.' A’ishah said, “The Messenger of Allah then got up amongst the people, praised and thanked Allah, and said, 'To proceed: what is the matter with the men amongst you who stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah? For indeed, a stipulation not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if it is one hundred conditions. The decree of Allah is the truth and the stipulation of Allah is firmest…'"  [1043] Reported by Bukhari (2563) and Muslim (1504). The wording here is from Bukhari. The Prophet validated the agreement but invalidated the condition, indicating that if a stipulation contradicts the intrinsic nature of the contract, then the condition is voided but the contract remains valid. [1044] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/395) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/193).

(2) Because the intrinsic nature of the trade implies the buyer’s discretion in dealing with the commodity, for his payment is made in exchange for ownership, and ownership implies the right to dispose of one’s property according to one’s discretion. Prohibiting this would lead to missing out on the goal of the trade, so the stipulation invalid. [1045] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/395).

2. Stipulating no loss on the part of the buyer
The stipulation is invalid but the transaction remains valid if the buyer stipulates to the seller that there should be no loss on his part, and this was the position of the Hanafis [1046] Durar al-Hukkam by `Ali Haydar (1/370). and Hanbalis, [1047] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/252, 253) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/193). the view of some of the predecessors, [1048] Ibn Qudamah said: “Or if he stipulates that he should sell it or endow it, that either the commodity should appreciate in value or he should return it [to the seller], that if someone forcibly seizes it then the price should be returned to him, or that if he frees him then allegiance is for him, these and other similar things are invalid stipulations. Do they invalidate the trade? There are two positions. Qadi said: ‘It is reported from Ahmad that the trade is valid, and this was the apparent meaning Khiraqi’s statement here. It was also the view of al-Hasan, al-Sha`bi, Nakha`i, al-Hakam, Ibn Abi Layla, and Abu Thawr.’” Al-Mughni (4/171). the basis for the ruling of the Permanent Committee, [1049] The verdict of the Permanent Committee stated: “If the buyer imposes a condition that there should be no loss for him or that the commodity should either appreciate in value or be returned, or if the seller imposes the same, saying, ‘Buy this merchandise from me, and if I incur a loss, I will compensate for the loss’, then the condition is invalid but the trade is valid. This is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah: ‘Every condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if there are a hundred [such] conditions.’” Fatawa al-Lajnat al-Da’imah – First assembly (13/198). and the view of Ibn `Uthaymin. [1050] Ibn `Uthaymin said: “The statement ‘if he stipulates that there should be no loss on his part’ falls under the second category, which is an invalid stipulation which does not invalidate. The stipulation is void, but the contract remains valid. The rule here is that invalidity should be specifically associated with the condition to contradict the implications of the contract. An example is if the buyer imposes the stipulation that there should be no loss for him. The buyer says, ‘I hereby purchase it from you for 100,000 on the condition that I incur no loss.’ Meaning: ‘If the market prices drop and I sell it for less, I do not incur a loss, and the loss is on the seller.’ This stipulation is invalid because it contradicts the inherent nature of the contract… If someone asks whether the contract is valid, we say: ‘Yes, because the stipulations have been fulfilled, the impediments have been removed, and the flaw here lies only in the stipulation.’” Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/241).

Evidence:
(1) From the Sunnah:
Aisha narrated, “Barirah came and said, ‘I have drawn a contract of manumission with my masters for nine uqiyyahs, with one uqiyyah to be paid each year, so help me.’” Aisha said: “If your masters agree, I will pay them the sum at once and free you on condition that your allegiance will be to me.’ Barirah went to her masters but they refused the offer. The Messenger of Allah heard about that and asked me, and I informed him. He said, ‘Buy and manumit her and stipulate that her allegiance should be for you, for allegiance is to the one who frees.’” Aisha said: “The Messenger of Allah then got up amongst the people, praised and thanked Allah, and said: ‘To proceed: what is the matter with the men amongst you who stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah? For indeed, a stipulation not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if it is one hundred conditions. The decree of Allah is the truth and the stipulation of Allah is firmest…’” [1051] Reported by Bukhari (2563) and Muslim (1504). The wording here is from Bukhari. The Prophet validated the agreement but invalidated the condition, indicating that if a stipulation contradicts the intrinsic nature of the contract, then the condition is voided but the contract remains valid. [1052] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/395) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/193).

(2) Because the intrinsic nature of the contract entails the transfer of ownership to the buyer after payment is handed over, with absolute discretion for the buyer to dispose of the commodity as they wish, and it is the buyer who is responsible for their own profit or loss. [1053] Fatawa al-Lajnat al-Da’imah – First assembly (13/198).

(3) To avoid the potential harm that could occur if the buyer neglects to promote the goods, sells them at a loss, and then returns to the seller. [1054] Fatawa al-Lajnat al-Da’imah – First assembly (13/198).

(4) Because if the seller says, “If you incur a loss on the merchandise, I will cover it”, it is deceitful, as it may mislead the buyer into thinking that the commodity is popular and worth the specified amount. [1055] Fatawa al-Lajnat al-Da’imah – First assembly (13/198).

3. Stipulating that if the commodity appreciates in value, the buyer will keep it, but otherwise he will return it to the seller
The stipulation is invalid but the transaction remains valid if the seller stipulates that if the commodity appreciates in value, the buyer will keep it, but otherwise he will return it to the seller, and this was the position of the Hanbalis, [1056] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/252, 253) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/193). the view of some of the predecessors, [1057] Ibn Qudamah said: “Or if he stipulates that he should sell it or endow it, that either the commodity should appreciate in value or he should return it [to the seller], that if someone forcibly seizes it then the price should be returned to him, or that if he frees him then allegiance is for him, these and other similar things are invalid stipulations. Do they invalidate the trade? There are two positions. Qadi said: ‘It is reported from Ahmad that the trade is valid, and this was the apparent meaning Khiraqi’s statement here. It was also the view of al-Hasan, al-Sha`bi, Nakha`i, al-Hakam, Ibn Abi Layla, and Abu Thawr.” Al-Mughni (4/171). the basis for the ruling of the Permanent Committee, [1058] The verdict of the Permanent Committee stated: “If the buyer imposes a condition that there should be no loss for him or that the commodity should either appreciate in value or be returned, or if the seller imposes the same, saying, ‘Buy this merchandise from me, and if I incur a loss, I will compensate for the loss’, then the condition is invalid but the trade is valid. This is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah: ‘Every condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if there are a hundred [such] conditions.’” Fatawa al-Lajnat al-Da’imah – First assembly (13/198). and the view of Ibn `Uthaymin. [1059] Ibn `Uthaymin said: “The statement ‘if he stipulates that there should be no loss on his part’ falls under the second category, which is an invalid stipulation which does not invalidate. The stipulation is void, but the contract remains valid. The rule here is that invalidity should be specifically associated with the condition to contradict the implications of the contract. An example is if the buyer imposes the stipulation that there should be no loss for him. The buyer says, ‘I hereby purchase it from you for 100,000 on the condition that I incur no loss.’ Meaning: ‘If the market prices drop and I sell it for less, I do not incur a loss, and the loss is on the seller.’ This stipulation is invalid because it contradicts the inherent nature of the contract… If someone asks whether the contract is valid, we say: ‘Yes, because the stipulations have been fulfilled, the impediments have been removed, and the flaw here lies only in the stipulation.’ His statement, that ‘either the commodity should appreciate in value or he should return it [to the seller]’, means that if it gains value and becomes marketable, it can be [re-]sold, but otherwise it is returned to the seller. This is also an invalid stipulation, because it also contradicts the inherent nature of the contract, which implies that the purchased item belongs to the buyer regardless of whether it appreciates in value or not.” Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/241).

Evidence:
(1) From the Sunnah:
Aisha narrated: “Barirah came and said, ‘I have drawn a contract of manumission with my masters for nine uqiyyahs, with one uqiyyah to be paid each year, so help me.’” Aisha said: “If your masters agree, I will pay them the sum at once and free you on condition that your allegiance will be to me.’ Barirah went to her masters but they refused the offer. The Messenger of Allah heard about that and asked me, and I informed him. He said, ‘Buy and manumit her and stipulate that her allegiance should be for you, for allegiance is to the one who frees.’” Aisha said: “The Messenger of Allah then got up amongst the people, praised and thanked Allah, and said: ‘To proceed: what is the matter with the men amongst you who stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah? For indeed, a stipulation not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if it is one hundred conditions. The decree of Allah is the truth and the stipulation of Allah is firmest…’” [1060] Reported by Bukhari (2563) and Muslim (1504). The wording here is from Bukhari. The Prophet validated the agreement but invalidated the condition, indicating that if a stipulation contradicts the intrinsic nature of the contract, then the condition is voided but the contract remains valid. [1061] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/395) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/193).

(2) Because it contradicts the intrinsic nature of the contract, which implies that the purchased item belongs to the buyer regardless of whether it appreciates in value or not. [1062] Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/241).

4. Stipulating a perpetual option to annul a transaction [1063] This is when the buyer purchases a commodity and stipulates that he has a perpetual option, meaning that he has the right to return the commodity at any time, even if a long period has passed.

Stipulating a perpetual option to annul a transaction is not valid, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1064] Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (4/565) and Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah (3/38). Malikis, [1065] They do not have a specific limit for commodities regarding the duration of the option. Instead, it is determined based on need, and it varies from one commodity to another. The contract becomes invalid if an impractical or excessively long period is stipulated beyond reasonable need, and they do not permit the duration to be perpetual. Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/409, 410) and Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/306). Shafi`is, [1066] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/190) and Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/47). and Hanbalis, [1067] Al-Furu` by Ibn Muflih (6/215), Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/269), and Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/85).

This is for the following reasons: