Is it agreed upon by all schools of thought that corrupt conditions unrelated to the purpose of the contract do not invalidate it, and what is the explanation of this rule, and how do we differentiate between a condition that invalidates the contract and one that does not?

Corrupt conditions are summarized in two types: The first type corrupts and invalidates the contract, and it has regulations and categories according to the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis. As for the second type, it keeps the transaction valid and is divided into two sections: that in which the transaction becomes valid if the stipulator waives it (the Malikis mentioned examples of this), and that in which the transaction becomes valid whether the stipulator waives it or not (such as stipulating what the contract does not entail according to the Hanafis, or exemption from defects according to the Malikis, or what contradicts the purport of the contract without compromising its objective, or what leads to ambiguity). Some scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, hold the view that the default for conditions is validity unless they contradict the objective of the contract or the objective of the Lawgiver thereof.