from Abu Hanifah, that it is valid for the initial price, and the condition is void; because the phrasing of the iqalah necessitates (6) the equivalent of the price, and the condition contradicts it, so it is void, and the dissolution remains according to its requirement, like other dissolutions. Our position is that he stipulated an increase [or decrease] in something where equality is considered, so it is void, like selling a dirham for two dirhams. Furthermore, the intention of iqalah is the return of every right to its owner, so when he stipulates an increase or a decrease, he deviates from the contract's objective, thus it is void, just as if he had sold it to him on the condition that he would not deliver it to him (8). It differs from other dissolutions; because consent from both is not considered in it, rather one of them can act independently, so if something is stipulated against him, it is not binding upon him, due to his ability to dissolve it without it. And if he stipulates something for himself, it is also not binding upon him, because he does not deserve more than the dissolution. In our issue, the iqalah is not permissible except with their mutual consent, and one of them only consented to it alongside the increase or decrease; so if we void his condition, his consent is lost, and thus the iqalah is void due to the lack of his consent to it.

736 - Issue; He said: (And whoever purchases a pile [subrah] of food, he shall not sell it until he moves it.)

This issue points to two rulings; the first of them is the permissibility of selling a pile of food by estimation [juzaf] while both the seller and the purchaser are ignorant of its quantity. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, and we know of no disagreement regarding it. Ahmad has explicitly stated it. It is evidenced by the statement of Ibn Umar: We used to purchase food from the caravaners by estimation, and the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade us from selling it until we moved it from its place. It is agreed upon (1). Also, because it is known by sight, its sale is valid, like garments and animals. It is not harmful that the interior of the pile is not seen, for that is difficult because the grains are piled on top of each other, and it is not possible to spread them out grain by grain. And because the grains are equal in their parts in appearance, so seeing the exterior suffices, unlike a garment, for unfolding it is not difficult, and its parts do not differ. It is not necessary to know its quantity along with seeing it;