Is a condition requiring the winner to feed the supporters of the contest valid?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Racing and Archery
Primary text
If a condition is stipulated that the winner must provide food for the supporters of the contest (its owners/organizers), this condition is void. This is because it constitutes consideration for an action (work), and only the worker is entitled to that consideration, similar to the compensation for retrieving an absconding slave. The contract itself, however, does not become void based on this ruling, which is the position of Abu Hanifa. The evidence supporting this is that the contract's validity does not depend on the specification of a substitute consideration, thus it is not invalidated by a void ancillary condition, analogous to marriage.
Supporting text
Al-Shafi'i holds that such a condition invalidates the entire contract. Furthermore, void conditions in a contest are categorized: those that violate the essential validity requirements of the contract (such as reverting to uncertainty regarding the consideration or the distance of the race) invalidate the contract entirely. Other void conditions, which do not violate essential requirements (such as feeding the organizers, or stipulating that the winner shall never shoot or shall cease shooting for a month, or a unilateral right to dissolve the contract after commencing work), lead to two views regarding the validity of the principal contract: one view holds the contract valid because the essential pillars and conditions are met, and the void addition is disregarded; the second view holds the contract void because the giving of consideration was contingent upon achieving that specific ancillary purpose.