The contract is not valid for the entirety, according to the opinion of al-Khiraqi. Two views are deduced regarding its validity in the amount taken into possession, based on the division of the transaction: one of them is that it is valid, which is the view of Abu Hanifa; the second is that it is not valid, which is the view of al-Shafi'i, and it is the more correct one. This is because that which is hastened has an advantage over that which is deferred, which necessitates that there be more in its compensation than there is in the compensation for the deferred portion, and the surplus is unknown, so it is not valid.

778 - Issue: He said: (And whenever any of these qualities is absent, it is void).

The entirety of this is that the six qualities we have mentioned are necessary for the Salam to be valid, and we have provided evidence for that. The reports differ regarding two other conditions:

One of them is knowing the quality of the specified price. There is no disagreement regarding the condition of knowing its quality if it is a debt (fi al-dhimma), because it is one of the two compensations of the Salam; so if it is not specified, it is required to know its quality, like the item for which Salam is paid. However, if he speaks generally and there is a specific currency in the land, the generalization refers to it and it stands in place of its description. As for if the price is specified, al-Qadi and Abu al-Khattab said: Knowledge of its quality is necessary. They cited the statement of Ahmad: He says, 'I have paid you such and such dirhams,' and he describes the price. Thus, he considered the precision of its quality. This is the view of Malik and Abu Hanifa, because it is a contract whose completion he cannot perform immediately, nor can he deliver the subject matter, and one cannot be safe from its annulment, so it became necessary to know the capital of the Salam in order to return its replacement, like a loan (qard) and partnership (sharika). And because it is not safe that some of the price might turn out to be someone else's property, in which case the contract would be annulled for that amount, and he would not know how much remained and how much was annulled. If it is said: 'This is a mere assumption, and assumptions are not considered,' we say: Assumption is considered here because the basis is non-permissibility, and it was only permitted when security from uncertainty (gharar) occurs, which is not found here, as evidenced by the case where one pays Salam for fruit from a specific garden, or estimates the item for which Salam is paid by a specific weight or measure; it is not valid.