I say, and with God's help: Our jurists have mentioned that if someone buys a ram on the condition that it will butt as a form of desire for this, then the sale is invalid; because forcing the ram to butt is a prohibited characteristic, as it is a form of play. Therefore, stipulating it in the sale invalidates it, as mentioned in the Indian Fatwas (3: 2-3) and Badā'iʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ (5: 169). This prohibited condition invalidates the contract if it is stipulated; if it is not stipulated, even if the ram is a butting one, it is not invalid, nor is it disliked, because its essence is not a vice, but rather the vice lies in its prohibited use, similar to a fighting rooster or a flying pigeon, as clarified by Al-Zayla'i in Al-Tahbīr (3: 297), Al-ʿAynī in Ramz al-Ḥaqā'iq (1: 329), ʿUmar ibn Nujaym in Al-Nahr al-Fā'iq (3: 268), and Abu al-Suʿūd in his commentary on Mulla Maskīn (3: 406). These issues are based on the view of Abu Ḥanīfa that their essence is not a vice like wine and musical instruments, but they can be beneficial in more than one way. The vice is the prohibited use of them, as the original purpose is not disobedience. For example, the essence of the ram is for meat; thus, butting is an incidental characteristic. Therefore, there is no disobedience in selling it, but disobedience occurs through the buyer's actions, which he chooses to do, thus severing its connection to the seller. Consequently, the criterion for aiding in the forbidden according to Abu Ḥanīfa is: What the sin is inherent in is disliked, like selling wine and musical instruments. The meaning of "inherent" is that its essence is a vice that only accepts the prohibited action. And what the sin is not inherent in is not disliked, and its reward is permissible. This means that its essence is not a vice, as the original purpose is not disobedience, but rather it is an incidental matter that occurs through the actions of a free agent, thus severing its connection from the seller or others. It is permissible to lease a house to be made into a church; because the lease is for the benefit of the house, and thus the rent is due upon delivery, and there is no sin in it, but the sin is in the actions of the lessee, which he chooses to do, thus severing its connection from him, as clarified by Al-Marghinānī in Al-Hidāyah (6: 165-166), Al-Sarakhsi in Al-Mabsūt (16: 38-39), Al-Zayla'i in Al-Tahbīr (6: 29), Al-ʿAynī in Ramz al-Ḥaqā'iq (2: 273), Al-Zāhidī in Al-Mujtabā (p. 357-a), Mulla Maskīn in Sharh al-Kanz (p. 302), Al-Ḥaskafī in Al-Durr al-Mukhtār (6: 391-292), and Shaykhī Zādah in Majmaʿ al-Anhār (2: 529). As for actions, it suffices that there is no sin inherent in it if it is mediated by the actions of a free agent, as in the case of raising pigs and constructing a church, it is permissible for a Muslim to do so; because there is no sin in the essence of the action, as clarified by Al-ʿAynī in Ramz al-Ḥaqā'iq (2: 273) and Al-Ḥaskafī in Al-Durr al-Mukhtār (6: 391), Abu al-Suʿūd in his commentary on Al-Kanz (3: 406), and Al-Nahlāwī in Al-Durār al-Mubāḥah (p. 81). It follows from this that it is permissible to build or lease a usurious bank, or to work in a usurious bank in non-usury contracts or to promote usury and encourage it, as it is not permissible; because it is forbidden in itself, thus it is not allowed, unlike other actions, where the action itself is permissible. This is according to the view of Abu Ḥanīfa, contrary to the view of the two companions regarding its dislike if they know of the sin. What I have mentioned here differs from what our teacher Al-ʿUthmānī mentioned in Fiqh al-Buyūʿ (1: 181) regarding this issue of prohibition; because he based it on his father's message, Sheikh Muhammad Shafīʿ, on aiding in the forbidden, and there was a mix-up in his message between the view of Abu Ḥanīfa and the two companions. I elaborated on this in my comments on Sheikh Muhammad Shafīʿ's message, and I wrote a special research on clarifying the issue which I titled "Summary of the Discussion on the Issue of Aiding in the Forbidden," in which I gathered all the issues of the Hanafis in this regard, and I reached the mentioned criterion. And God knows best.