and dates, salt, cars, utensils, real estate, and other such things.

By our saying, “whose benefit is lawful,” we mean that it must possess some benefit; thus, a tangible item that has no benefit does not fall under this definition.

By our saying, “whose benefit is lawful,” we exclude items whose use is prohibited, such as wind instruments and musical instruments. These do not fall under the term property here.

By our saying, “without need,” we exclude that whose use is permitted due to need or necessity. For example, carrion is permitted in cases of necessity, while the hide of carrion, once tanned, is permitted due to need. Moreover, according to the well-known position of the madhhab, its use is only permitted with dry substances. Thus, this qualification is essential: “a tangible item whose benefit is lawful without need.”

A hunting dog, therefore, is a tangible item whose benefit is lawful, but only due to need; this is why its benefit has been restricted by a particular condition. It now becomes clear that property is every tangible item whose benefit is lawful without need.

His statement, “even if it is a liability owed”: the word “even” indicates that there is something contrasted with what is owed as a liability, namely, a specified item. A sale may involve a specified item, or it may involve something owed as a liability.

This becomes clear through an example. If I say, “I sell you this book for this book,” this is an exchange of one specified item for another, not something owed as a liability. But if I say, “I sell you this book for ten riyals,” this is an exchange of a specified item for something owed as a liability—even though I said, “ten riyals,” because I did not specify particular coins; rather, they remain a liability upon me.

His statement, “even if it is a liability owed,” includes an exchange of one liability for another. For example, I buy from you one kilogram of sugar for ten riyals, then