in days, so if it becomes corrupt in part of it, it becomes corrupt in its entirety, just as if he had stipulated it until the harvest (26).

Section: It is permissible for the one who holds the option to annul the contract without the presence of the other party or his consent. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Zufar held this view. Abu Hanifa said: He does not have the right to annul except in the presence of the other party; because the contract involves the right of both contracting parties, so neither of them owns the right to annul it without the presence of the other, like a deposit (wadi'a). Our evidence is that it is a dissolution of a contract that does not depend on the consent of the other party, therefore it does not depend on his presence, just like divorce. What they argued is invalidated by divorce; furthermore, the depositor has no right in the deposit (regarding the annulment of the contract), and its annulment is valid even in his absence.

Section: If the period of the option expires and neither of them has annulled it, the option becomes void and the contract becomes binding. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: It does not become binding merely by the passage of time. This is the position of Malik; because the period of the option was set for a right he holds, not a right held against him, so the ruling does not become binding solely by the passage of time, like the expiry of the term in the case of the master (regarding the mukatab slave). Our evidence is that it is a period attached to the contract, so it becomes void upon its expiration, like a fixed term (ajal). Furthermore, ruling that it remains would lead to the continuation of the option beyond the period for which they stipulated it. The condition is the cause of the option, so it is not permissible for what is not covered by it to be established through it. Also, because it is a time-bound ruling, it expires upon the expiration of its time, like all other time-bound matters. Additionally, the sale implies bindingness, and its requirement was only suspended by the condition; therefore, in what the condition does not cover, its requirement must be established due to the disappearance of the opposing factor, as if he had finalized it (28). As for the master, the period was only set for the entitlement to demand, and it is entitled by the expiration of the period. The ruling in this matter is clear.

Section: If one of the two contracting parties says at the time of the contract: "No deception (la khilaba) (29)." Ahmad said: I consider