Is it valid to combine two distinct irrigation contracts for two different walls (gardens) with a condition?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Sharecropping (Musāqāh)
Primary text
A contract stipulating a one-third share for irrigation in one wall, on the condition that the contractor also undertakes irrigation in another wall for a specified share, is invalid. This is because it involves stipulating one contract within another contract, thereby falling under the meaning of two sales in one transaction, analogous to saying, 'I sell you my garment on the condition that you sell me your garment.'
Supporting text
The invalidity arises from two factors: first, stipulating another contract within the primary contract renders the benefit derived from the secondary contract ambiguous, making the compensation conditional on both a known and an unknown element. Second, the second contract is not binding through the condition, causing the condition itself to lapse. If the condition lapses, the portion of the consideration left out due to that condition must be returned, and that amount is unknown, rendering the entire transaction ambiguous.