What is the ruling on stipulating the binding nature of a financial contract that is not originally binding, and is it permissible to exchange consideration for this commitment?

The 'Ju'alah' (reward-based contract) becomes binding after the completion of the work, according to the consensus of scholars. Before the work begins, it is not binding according to the majority. If the worker starts the work, it becomes binding only on the 'Ja'il' (the one offering the reward) according to the Malikis. However, stipulating that the 'Ju'alah' is binding on the worker invalidates the contract.

The 'Shirka' (partnership) contract is permissible, and stipulating its binding nature makes the condition invalid according to the majority. However, the Malikis and Shafi'is consider the contract itself invalid by this condition, whereas the Hanafis and Hanbalis invalidate the condition and uphold the contract.

Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen hold the view that it is permissible to stipulate binding nature in contracts as long as it does not contravene the Sharia (definition) or contradict the original intent of the contract. Based on this, it is permissible to stipulate the binding nature of a partnership, such as by setting a time limit for it.

As for stipulating the binding nature of the 'Ju'alah' on the worker, its permissibility does not appear evident, because his work is unknown and may take a long time. This is unless a duration is set for it, and the worker becomes entitled to the reward at its end, regardless of whether the work is completed or not, which would transform it into an 'Ijarah (definition)' (leasing/hiring) contract.

There is no evidence to support the permissibility of financial compensation for accepting the condition of binding nature in a partnership, and it appears to be forbidden, as it is not among the lawful means of earning money.