the sun from beneath the clouds, or until its disappearance beneath them, it is an unknown option, which is not valid according to the correct position in the school.

Section: If they stipulate the option indefinitely, or "whenever we wish," or one of them says: "The option is mine," and he does not mention its duration, or they stipulate it for an unknown duration—such as the arrival of Zayd, the blowing of the wind, the falling of rain, the consulting of a person, and the like—it is not valid according to the correct position in the school. This is the choice of al-Qadi and Ibn 'Aqil, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i. It is reported from Ahmad that it is valid, and they remain with their option indefinitely, or until they terminate it, or its duration ends if it was stipulated for a period. This is the position of Ibn Shubruma, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The Muslims are bound by their conditions." Malik said: It is valid, and a duration is assigned to them in which the object of sale is typically tested in such cases; because this is estimated by custom, so when they leave it absolute, it is interpreted according to that. Abu Hanifah said: If they drop the condition before the passing of three days, or delete what is in excess of them and specify its duration, it becomes valid; because they deleted the corrupting factor before it was connected to the contract, so it must be valid, just as if they had not stipulated it. Our position is that this is a duration attached to the contract, so it is not permissible with uncertainty, just like a deferred payment. Furthermore, the stipulation of an option indefinitely necessitates the prohibition of disposal forever, and that contradicts the requirement of the contract, so it is not valid, just as if he said: "I sold to you on the condition that you do not dispose of it." Malik's statement that it is referred back to custom is not correct, for there is no custom regarding the option to which one can return. Its stipulation with uncertainty is rare. Abu Hanifah's statement is not valid, for the corrupting factor is the condition, and it is concomitant with the contract. Furthermore, the contract must be either valid or corrupt; if it is valid with the condition, it does not become corrupt by the existence of what they stipulated within it, and if it is corrupt, it does not become valid, just as if he sold one dirham for two, then deleted one of them. According to our position: the condition is corrupt. Does the sale become corrupt because of it? There are two narrations: One of them is that it becomes corrupt, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i; because it is a contract accompanied by a corrupt condition, so it corrupts it, like the marriage of shighar, and the contract of a mustahill (a man who marries a divorced woman to make her lawful for her previous husband). Furthermore, the seller was only pleased with his offering for this price with the option of reclaiming it, and the buyer was only pleased with offering this price for it with the option of annulling it, so if we validated it, we would be removing the ownership of each one of them from him without his consent and compelling him to what he was not pleased with. Furthermore, the condition takes a portion of the price, so if we delete it, it is necessary to return what dropped from the price because of it, and that is unknown, so the price becomes unknown, and the contract becomes corrupt. The second is that the contract does not become corrupt by it, and this is the position of Ibn Abi Layla, due to the hadith of Barirah. Furthermore, the contract has been completed with its pillars, and the condition is supplementary; so if it becomes corrupt and is removed, the corrupt part falls away, and the contract remains with its two pillars, so it is valid, just as if he had not stipulated it.