is the view of most of the companions of al-Shafi'i, because it is a contract of transfer of ownership, thus requiring an offer and acceptance, like marriage. The correct view is that mutual consent (mu'atah) and actions indicating offer and acceptance are sufficient, and there is no need for verbal expression. This is the choice of Ibn 'Aqil, for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) used to give gifts and receive them, to give and be given, and to distribute alms, ordering his collectors to distribute and collect them; his companions used to do the same, and it was never reported from them that there was an offer or acceptance in that, nor was it commanded or taught to anyone. If that were a condition, it would have been reported from them as a widely known transmission. Ibn 'Umar was on a camel belonging to 'Umar, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to 'Umar, 'Sell it to me.' He replied, 'It is yours, O Messenger of Allah.' The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, 'It is yours, O 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, so do with it as you wish.' The Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) acceptance from 'Umar was not reported, nor was Ibn 'Umar's acceptance from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If it were a condition, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have performed it, and Ibn 'Umar would have known it, and he would not have commanded him to do with it as he wished before he had accepted it. Abu Hurayrah narrated that when the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was brought food, he would ask about it. If they said, 'It is alms,' he would say to his companions, 'Eat,' but he himself would not eat. And if they said, 'It is a gift,' he would reach out his hand and eat with them. There is no disagreement among scholars, to our knowledge, that placing food before guests is permission to eat and that it does not require verbal acceptance. And because there exists what indicates mutual consent to the transfer of ownership, it is sufficient, just as if an offer and acceptance were present. Ibn 'Aqil said: Offer and acceptance are only stipulated in cases of ambiguity and the absence of established custom between the giver and the recipient; because if there is no custom indicating consent, then a statement indicating it is necessary. However, with contextual evidence and indications, there is no basis for it being contingent upon verbal expression. Do you not see that we have deemed mutual consent (mu'atah) sufficient in sales, and deemed the indication of the state sufficient