What is the ruling on a sales contract that includes a condition for the seller to reclaim the property after 140 years, while the buyer retains the right to dispose of it during this period, and the condition remains valid for subsequent buyers; and is this condition valid by analogy with the ruling on a life estate (umra) which does not revert to the donor?

It is not permissible to set a time limit for a sale, even if it is a long one, because a sale entails the transfer of ownership in perpetuity. Therefore, stipulating a time limit contradicts the essence of a sale contract. However, it is permissible to lease for a period during which the leased item is likely to remain. The consequence of leasing is that the responsibility for the property's guarantee and maintenance falls on the owner, and it is a trust in the hands of the tenant, who is not liable for anything therein except in cases of transgression or negligence. This differs from a sale, where the responsibility for the item's guarantee and maintenance falls on the buyer, to whom ownership ultimately transfers.

A temporary sale is used as a stratagem for usury, where the sale price is the loan, and the buyer is the lender, and his use of the property is usurious interest on the loan. The majority of jurists have prohibited what is known as Bay' al-Wafa' (sale with a right of redemption) for this reason. This is when someone who needs money sells a property, a movable asset, or a share thereof, on the condition that they can reclaim it when they produce the price. The Islamic Fiqh Academy has ruled that this sale is a "loan that brings benefit," which is a circumvention of usury. The majority of scholars have stated its invalidity, and the Academy deemed it impermissible according to Sharia. There is no difference in the ruling whether they agree to return the sold item when the seller produces the price, or whether they agree to return it after 140 years, or more, or less; for a valid sale can only be perpetual.