ما هو دليل المالكية على أن الافتراق بين المتبايعين لفظي وليس بالأبدان؟

Scholars have differed regarding the option of the session (khiyar al-majlis). The majority of them (Shafi'is and Hanbalis) consider it valid, holding that a contract is not binding until the parties separate or choose to finalize (takhayur). They cite the hadith: "The two parties to a sale, each of them has the option against his counterpart as long as they have not separated, except for a sale with a pre-agreed option," and similar narrations. They also cite the statement of Ibn 'Umar: "It was the Sunnah that the two parties to a sale had the option until they separated," and the action of the Prophet, peace be upon him, giving an Arab Bedouin the option after a sale, as well as the people's need for reconsideration.

The Hanafis and Malikis, however, hold that it is not valid. They cite the Almighty's saying: "unless it be a trade by mutual consent from among you," and "Fulfill your contracts." They argue that adhering to the option after the contract vitiates the condition in the principle "Muslims are bound by their conditions." They analogized sale to marriage and other contracts for which the option of the session is not established, and they mentioned that the duration of the session is unknown.

However, the evidence relied upon against the option of the session cannot refute the authentic hadith, for the verses are general and the hadith specifies them, and the analogy is invalid due to its contradiction with the text.