Is it permissible to purchase an apartment from the state through the aforementioned installment system, which includes usurious conditions, late payment penalties, and the state retaining ownership, knowing that the state only sells through this system? And does the sin fall upon the state, not the buyer, by analogy with the issue of bribery? Or is the contract valid and the condition void, according to the Hanafī school of thought? And does the ruling differ between someone who is in need of the apartment and someone who is not?

It is not permissible to purchase through usurious contracts, which are forbidden. The possession resulting from a void contract, such as a usurious contract, is a matter of scholarly disagreement regarding whether it confers ownership. The view of Abu Hanifa is that it does confer ownership, while the view of Shafi'i and Ahmad is that it does not. The view of Malik is that it confers ownership if the item has been consumed or used (fawat), but not if it is still possible to return it. Thus, the Hanafī school considers usurious contracts to be فاسدة (voidable/defective) rather than باطلة (null and void ab initio), meaning they are valid in their essence but not in their description. The Hanafis stipulate that a فاسد contract must be annulled before the item is consumed or used. However, usurious transactions are permitted in cases of necessity or need that approaches necessity.