"Take it," or "I have become satisfied," and the like. This would then constitute a sufficient contract. If there is nothing found to stand in place of the offer (ijab) or to indicate it, it is not valid, because the previous speech is not fit to be an offer for the reasons we mentioned. It has been narrated from Ahmad, regarding one who says: "If you sew it today, you shall have one dirham, and if you sew it tomorrow, you shall have half a dirham," that it is valid. It is possible that this sale could be attached to that, and thus a position could be derived for its validity. It is also possible to differentiate between them on the basis that the contract in that case can be valid because it is a wage contract (ju'ala) which permits uncertainty, unlike a sale. Furthermore, the labor for which the wage is deserved cannot occur except upon one of the two deals, so the specified wage is determined as the compensation for it, and it does not lead to dispute, which is unlike the case here.

Section: If he sells to him on the condition that he lends him [money] or gives him a loan, or the buyer stipulates that against him, it is prohibited and the sale is void. This is the school of Malik and al-Shafi'i, and I know of no disagreement regarding it, except that Malik said: "If the one who stipulated the loan abandons the loan, the sale becomes valid." Our argument is what was narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr, that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the profit on what is not guaranteed, the sale of what is not possessed, two sales in one sale, two conditions in a sale, and a sale combined with a loan. Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi recorded it, and the latter said: "A hasan sahih (good and authentic) hadith." In one wording: "A sale combined with a loan is not lawful." Also, because he stipulated a contract within a contract, it is corrupt, like two sales in one sale. Furthermore, when he stipulates a loan, he increases the price on account of it, so the increase in price becomes compensation for the loan and a profit for him, which is prohibited usury (riba); thus it is corrupt, just as if he had stated that explicitly. And because it is a corrupt sale, it does not return to being valid, just as if he sold one dirham for two dirhams, and then abandoned one of them.